We’re talking about the big shift, from the general use of incandescent globes to energy saving globes, which use only 25% as much energy as their old style cousins, and save us enormous amounts of both money and greenhouse gases over their lifetime. Who knew that a light bulb could create such an involved conversation (except maybe Thomas Edison!). But there is a lot of talk being thrown around currently about how great energy saving bulbs are. Truth is, that they are going to be an absolutely necessary weapon in our arsenal against climate change – but there are two sides to every story. Why do we love them and want to marry them … and why hasn’t everyone immediately replaced every single bulb in their home?

Firstly, some statistics, from green.yahoo.com. The 18 seconds campaign on this site is sponsored by Energy Star bulbs, and shows how many energy saving bulbs have been bought from their company and installed across America, and how many tones of carbon dioxide that has saved going into the atmosphere. Roughly 27 million bulbs have been purchased (not even one per 10% of the population), however this equates in terms of greenhouse savings to 193,000 cars off the road, or 12 billion pounds of CO2. For a little thing, they sure pack a wallop! Middle America is the best at using these, with Oklahoma and its neighbors ranking best. Energy Star says it takes 18 seconds to change a light bulb – so why hasn’t the Earth recovered already?…

The biggest reason is money. The initial cost of an energy saving globe is still the big stumbling block for many people. Energy saving globes can cost up to 15 times as much as incandescents. That said, they will also save you at least twice their initial cost in the lower amount of energy they use. Some reporters also point out that because they put out less heat than traditional bulbs, you can save on your home’s heating and cooling – which is usually the biggest part of your energy bill (lighting is second!). The other part of the debate is that, when energy saving globes become more common, economies of scale mean that production costs will come down, and therefore the shelf price will also come down. The only problem there is not too many people want to be the guinea pigs, paying extra just because they are in the energy-saving minority! That 50c light bulb on the supermarket shelf is just too tempting for so many people.

The only other difference in energy saving globes, which could be a potential drawback, is the color of light they produce. Incandescent globes produce lightwaves mainly at the red end of the spectrum, whereas fluorescent globes produce mostly blue light. Hence the somewhat pasty appearance of the poor kids working at fast food restaurants! However, the blue as opposed to the red light does make things in your home look different, and blue light can be more difficult to relax in. Perhaps keep a couple of incandescent globes for your lamps that you use to read and relax by, and replace all of the globes in your main fixtures.

Australia is planning to phase out incandescent globes by 2009 – hopefully the economies and environmental benefits this experiment generates will be a bit of an example for other countries. In the meantime, you can ponder how many greenies it takes to change a lightbulb! And how many penny-pinchers it takes not to change one…

Photo credits: Low energy bulbs (c) by LESS/R Short ; Change a Light, Change the World by Grizzly

          

This entry was filed under Lighting. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.