As I picked up over at Ecotality, a Californa Assemblyman will soon introduce a bill to ban the sale of incandescent lightbulbs by 2012.
"Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications," California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said on Tuesday.
"Meanwhile, they remain incredibly inefficient, converting only about 5 percent of the energy they receive into light."
While uncomfortable about "banning", the clear societal benefits -- with clear benefits for individuals (through reduced utility bills) -- make this a ban that makes sense nation-wide, and sooner than 2012.
The fact is, simply, that incandescent lightbulbs are highly inefficient. Lou Grinzo also blogged on this at his great site Cost of Energy.
I'm sure that the "government regulation is the work of the devil" crowd will hate this proposed California law. To those people, I say: Prove to me that forcing people to make this minor change, which has a big, positive impact on society, is worse than waiting for higher market prices to force people to make the same change, and at a slower rate. Show me where there's something inherently evil or wrong about using modern technology to reduce the electricity consumed by residential lighting by 75%.
None of this is to say that I like the idea of government intervention in markets. I definitely would prefer to see consumers flocking to CFL's in droves and incandescent bulbs selling so poorly that companies stopped making and selling them. But this is a perfect example of a situation in which relying on the free market to arrive at what we know is the right answer will only inflict more, needless economic pain on individuals and society as a whole. Given those circumstances, I'd vote for such a law in my own state (New York) in a second.
He expresses extremely well my discomfort with the 'banning' but yet that this is such a powerful issue in terms of energy efficiency that there is little excuse not to pursue it. As with Lou, the biggest issue might be: Why wait until 2012?
Walmart is planning to massively boost its CFL sales within a year, to 100 million / year -- or about 5% of the annual lightbulb market. Considering that CFLs last, on average, eight times longer, annual CFL sales will be driving down (seriously) the total number of lightbulbs sold per year. If the figure is, as reported, a total market of 2 billion lightbulbs in the United States, we could see CFLs drive that volume down to, perhaps, somewheres between 250 and 500 million bulbs per year. Hmmm ... Walmart, alone, will be meeting perhaps 20 percent of the annual requirement for lightbulbs????
And, well, CFLs are much more efficient than incandescents. Not only do they use less electricity to make equivalent light, they also throw off FAR less waste heat, thus reducing air conditioning loads. (As per EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones, CFLs generate 70 percent less heat than incandescent lights.) Thus, while CFLs save roughly 75% on the cost to make lighting, they also are reducing the air conditioning load which might be (in many places) enough of a reduced load to be the equivalent of the CFL saving 80-90% of the real electricy demand caused by the incandescents.
And, well, unless you are an electric utility or coal company seeking to maximize electricity sales, compact fluorescents are a win-win-win situation. They will SAVE YOU MONEY -- really. They reduce electricity use. They don't have to be replaced as often. (Thus, a $2 CFL might cost 8 times the price of an incandescent, but it lasts 8 times as long ... hmmm ... figure that one out.). Thus, in the end, the CFL might not cost more to buy than multiple incandescents while reducing electricity use by 75%. This is a case of where spending just a little upfront can save bigtime (and quickly). Going back to The Cost of Energy, in the downloads section Grinzo has a great tool for calculating payback periods for buying CFLs. ("lighting, version 1.0" -- an excel spreadsheet download) Don't be surprised if you see payback periods of just a few months and remember that the CFLs, on average, will last for years. You'll get your money back many times over as I discovered (to my surprise) in my own home.
But, CFLs are only a starting point in energy efficiency. I've begun to install LED lighting in my home -- that is a reduction of 80% on the CFL and an elimination of the air conditioning burden. Just for lighting, that is a 95% reduction in electricity use from the incandescent lightbulb and perhaps a 98% reduction in the total energy burden. And, the LED's probably will last at least 8 times longer than the CFL -- or something like 50-200 times longer than an incandescent lightbulb. (And, of course, LEDs are fantastic options for Christmas lights.) LEDs cost more (a lot more) than CFLs. The ones that I might well outlive the house I'm putting them in. But, putting them through the same sort of calculation as CFLs, they end up paying for themselves even at today's high prices ... just over a much longer period. (Payback is in years rather than months.)
But, back to the story of the day, this is a law that makes sense. Just as a law moved Americans to toilets that use about 1/3rd the water to flush our business, this law would cut the electricity to light America's homes by well over 50% within a decade. Now that, my friends, would be a step forward in a "no regrets" path toward dealing with Global Warming.
NOTE: