mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
We’ve been thinking eco lately, with blogs about how small changes in the way companies like Google and Wal-Mart run their businesses could save mondo megawatts every year. Now, it looks like a whole country is getting into the act: Australia has just announced a ban on incandescent light bulbs, to be completed phased out and replaced by more efficient fluorescent bulbs by 2010. That little change, according to their environmental minister, could cut the country’s greenhouse gas output by as much as 4 million tons annually.
They make a good point: regular light bulbs, designed in the 19th century by engineers like Thomas Edison and Joseph Swann, are stuck in the stone age compared to the rest of our technology. They waste massive amounts of energy radiating useless heat, and energy-efficient bulbs use somewhere on the order of 20% as much electricity. Another fun tidbit: also according to Australia’s top enviro guy, “If the whole world switches to these bulbs today, we would reduce our consumption of electricity by an amount equal to five times Australia’s annual consumption of electricity.” I’d love to know how switching to energy efficient bulbs compares with driving energy efficient cars in terms of greenhouse gas output — anyone have any leads?
Comments (11)
Comment
Not sure about the car comparison, but I guess this goes intot he “every bit helps” category. Think of all the waste in Las Vegas and Times Square!
“Useless heat” is not quite accurate since in winter, this “useless” heat ends up “accidentally” warming are homes. Of course, in the summertime, we don’t want the extra heating.
posted by Robert on 2-21-2007 at 2:26 pm
I was considering converting my whole house to those energy efficient bulbs when I discovered…
…their mercury content. Each bulb contains a small amount of mercury and should be recycled, not placed in a dump where the mercury can leach into the groundwater. Broken bulbs can pose a long term health risk to sanitation workers.
There’s a very good NPR article on it at:
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198
posted by Bryan on 2-21-2007 at 2:40 pm
California is following in Australia’s footsteps by outlawing all incandescent bulbs by 2012. With such sweeping changes like this, I imagine issues like Bryan’s mention of mercury would have to be addressed soon (at least I would hope).
posted by MOD on 2-21-2007 at 2:50 pm
Personally, I can’t stand fluorescent light bulbs as they cause my eyes to itch and water and long shopping trips to the mall (where it is almost entirely lit by fluorescent bulbs) tend to cause a lot of bad headaches. I’m not sure what it is that causes this, but I’ve heard a few people complain of this as well, and I doubt that it’s just a small percentage of the population that experiences this. A ban on incandescent bulbs could cause a lot of discomfort for certain people, and perhaps even a health-care liability.
posted by William Sheane on 2-21-2007 at 3:42 pm
Here’s the answer to mercury in the bulbs…and all garbage, for that matter:
www.popsci.com/popsci/science/873aae7bf86c0110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
(sorry for the long link).
Compact fluorescents are not supposed to be installed in sealed (globe) type fixtures; even though they don’t put off a lot of heat, it shortens the life of the bulb if it gets -too- hot.
posted by Stephen on 2-21-2007 at 4:10 pm
So what gives? Should one switch to the energy efficient bulbs or not? I didn’t know about the mercury.. thanks for bringing that up guys…
posted by Greg on 2-21-2007 at 9:32 pm
You can’t use a dimmer switch with fluorescents.
posted by OregonMike on 2-22-2007 at 11:01 am
- Then there’s been a lot of progress with LED bulbs for almost anything - including automotive headlamps, which is amazing considerting brightness - but LED (equivilent replacement)are _expensive_. With a little more technological development, LEDs could leapfrog flourescents, and at an order of magnitude less power consumption.
posted by Diarmid Connell on 2-22-2007 at 12:19 pm
more about mercury, from the “horses mouth” — we really should be hearing more about this by those writing stories about these bulbs. It is scary that we aren’t — makes me wonder what kind of research reporters do these days, or do they just print press releases?
it’s not just sanitation workers who are at risk– these bulbs are supposed to be disposed of as hazardous waste. And if you break one at home? Remember old thermometers? same deal. There’s a reason those are rarely used anymore.
posted by liz on 2-23-2007 at 12:40 am
HAS ANYONE HEARD THE OLD TALE (FOLK LORE) ABOUT HOW THERE IS A LIGHT BULB THAT NEVER BURNS OUT BUT THEY WON’T ALLOW MASS PRODUCTION AS IT WOULD CRIPPLE SEVERAL INDUSTRIES…. I KNOW IT SOUNDS STUPID…
posted by JOHN BROWN on 2-23-2007 at 11:46 am
In terms of the mercury, it’s a very small amount — about the size of a tip of a ballpoint pen. There is MUCH more (100 times) the amount of mercury in a thermometer than in a bulb — and most people have those in their home. Yes, it is important to be careful about disposing of the bulbs (best to recyle them) because we don’t want mercury to harm any living things. By the way, using energy efficient bulbs decreases the amount of mercury put out in the environment. Coal powered plants put mercury into the environment when they generate electricity. Using a regular bulb results in 2.5 times as much mercury spewed into the environment than using an energy efficient bulb.
posted by Janet on 3-14-2007 at 10:02 am