Which way do we lean???
Mar 05, 2007 04:30 AM
Tyler Hamilton
The spirit of Thomas Edison, perhaps stirred by Australia's decision to ban the incandescent light technology he first commercialized, isn't going down without a fight.
You see, the American inventor may be dead, but his determination lives on in the company he founded 115 years ago: the mighty General Electric Co.
Three days after Australia announced its plan to phase out the incandescent bulb by 2010, GE put out a press release with the following headline:
"GE Announces Advancement in Incandescent Technology; New High-Efficiency Lamps Targeted for Market by 2010."
The well-timed release added advancements and "new materials" will make the trusty incandescent comparable to compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) in energy efficiency.
The new bulbs will replace traditional 40- to 100-watt household bulbs, said GE, adding that initial production will be twice as efficient as today's incandescent bulbs and will eventually be four times as efficient – comparable to CFLs.
Kevin Nolan, a v.p. of technology at GE, is then quoted saying, "the 21st century version of Edison's bulb provides all the desirable benefits, including light quality and instant-on convenience, as incandescent lamps currently provide at a price that will be less than CFLs."
He said GE also supports and sells CFLs, but believes consumers should have more options. In other words, don't mess with Thomas Edison.
It's funny how the United States always seems to go against the international grain, whether on Kyoto, genetically modified foods or the invasion of Iraq. Now, we're talking the battle of the bulbs.
At a conference last week in Paris, the European Lamp Companies Federation – which includes GE and European rivals Royal Philips Electronic NV and Siemens AG – agreed to push consumers toward using more energy-efficient bulbs.
Philips and Siemens want to work toward a phase-out of incandescent bulbs, similar to the one planned in Australia and proposed in California and New Jersey, while GE doesn't support such a ban. It argues instead for a commitment toward energy-efficiency that is more technology-neutral.
Theo Van Deursen, CEO of Philips, criticized GE in an Associated Press report, saying the U.S. company's plan to introduce advanced incandescent bulbs by 2010 was undermining efforts to advance energy-efficiency goals sooner.
"I don't think we should wait until 2010, because there are alternatives available now," said Van Deursen, predicting that the days were numbered for the Edison bulb as CFLs and eventually light-emitting diode (LED) technology gained market share. "We believe there are better technologies going forward."
GE lashed back, saying nobody should be dictating which technologies thrive and which die. Stroking U.S. nationalist sentiments, it also said a ban on incandescent bulbs would make the U.S. dependent on non-U.S. manufacturers for "virtually all of its general-purpose lighting." Apparently, 90 per cent of the CFLs sold in the U.S. are made in China.
What they all agree on is that the Edison bulb in its current form is no longer sustainable in a world scared silly by global warming and determined to reduce wasteful energy use in all forms.
About 20 per cent of global electricity consumption is a direct result of the lights we use, and well more than half of that is still based on incandescent technology. But the Edison bulb is an energy abuser, using just 5 per cent of the electricity that flows into it to produce light and letting the other 95 per cent escape into the air as heat.
Now, you could say this isn't a big issue in winter, since most homes and businesses welcome the lost heat, which may offset natural gas or electric heating costs. However, in the summer or in countries with a warm climate year-round, the heat released from incandescents makes air conditioners work harder – a double drain on energy.
CFLs, LEDs and other solid-state lighting technologies hardly release any heat, last much longer and are more durable – you don't get wobbly pieces of thin tungsten breaking in the grocery bag. That said, GE raises a good point: Do you ban the technology or do you establish strict standards by which all technologies must comply?
It's the same argument we're facing in Ontario with coal plants and energy-from-waste facilities. Do you shut down coal plants because they are big polluters that slowly kill the population with toxins and pump the atmosphere with global-warming causing greenhouse gases? Do you take the same approach with new technologies for turning municipal solid waste into energy?
Or, do you set limits on emissions and leave it for bidders to prove that their technology is compliant?
We must also consider a wildcard in the light-bulb debate: mercury.
Each CFL bulb contains an average of 5 milligrams of mercury, a nasty substance that can cause serious illness. Incandescent bulbs don't contain mercury. This means any major shift toward CFLs will require recycling programs that prevent that mercury from going into landfills.
Environmentalists, while encouraging recycling programs, argue that the extra coal-fired generation required to light an Edison bulb releases more mercury into the atmosphere than contained in a CFL fixture. That would be a good argument if all our electricity came from coal-fired generation, but that isn't the case in Ontario, where more than half comes from nuclear, hydroelectric and renewables.
And besides, if GE is claiming its new and improved incandescent bulb can achieve the efficiency of a CFL, then which do you go for: the one that contains mercury or the one that doesn't?
I would have never guessed that changing a light bulb could be so controversial. Where are low-cost, mercury-free, high-quality LEDs when you need them?
Mar 05, 2007 04:30 AM
Tyler Hamilton
The spirit of Thomas Edison, perhaps stirred by Australia's decision to ban the incandescent light technology he first commercialized, isn't going down without a fight.
You see, the American inventor may be dead, but his determination lives on in the company he founded 115 years ago: the mighty General Electric Co.
Three days after Australia announced its plan to phase out the incandescent bulb by 2010, GE put out a press release with the following headline:
"GE Announces Advancement in Incandescent Technology; New High-Efficiency Lamps Targeted for Market by 2010."
The well-timed release added advancements and "new materials" will make the trusty incandescent comparable to compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) in energy efficiency.
The new bulbs will replace traditional 40- to 100-watt household bulbs, said GE, adding that initial production will be twice as efficient as today's incandescent bulbs and will eventually be four times as efficient – comparable to CFLs.
Kevin Nolan, a v.p. of technology at GE, is then quoted saying, "the 21st century version of Edison's bulb provides all the desirable benefits, including light quality and instant-on convenience, as incandescent lamps currently provide at a price that will be less than CFLs."
He said GE also supports and sells CFLs, but believes consumers should have more options. In other words, don't mess with Thomas Edison.
It's funny how the United States always seems to go against the international grain, whether on Kyoto, genetically modified foods or the invasion of Iraq. Now, we're talking the battle of the bulbs.
At a conference last week in Paris, the European Lamp Companies Federation – which includes GE and European rivals Royal Philips Electronic NV and Siemens AG – agreed to push consumers toward using more energy-efficient bulbs.
Philips and Siemens want to work toward a phase-out of incandescent bulbs, similar to the one planned in Australia and proposed in California and New Jersey, while GE doesn't support such a ban. It argues instead for a commitment toward energy-efficiency that is more technology-neutral.
Theo Van Deursen, CEO of Philips, criticized GE in an Associated Press report, saying the U.S. company's plan to introduce advanced incandescent bulbs by 2010 was undermining efforts to advance energy-efficiency goals sooner.
"I don't think we should wait until 2010, because there are alternatives available now," said Van Deursen, predicting that the days were numbered for the Edison bulb as CFLs and eventually light-emitting diode (LED) technology gained market share. "We believe there are better technologies going forward."
GE lashed back, saying nobody should be dictating which technologies thrive and which die. Stroking U.S. nationalist sentiments, it also said a ban on incandescent bulbs would make the U.S. dependent on non-U.S. manufacturers for "virtually all of its general-purpose lighting." Apparently, 90 per cent of the CFLs sold in the U.S. are made in China.
What they all agree on is that the Edison bulb in its current form is no longer sustainable in a world scared silly by global warming and determined to reduce wasteful energy use in all forms.
About 20 per cent of global electricity consumption is a direct result of the lights we use, and well more than half of that is still based on incandescent technology. But the Edison bulb is an energy abuser, using just 5 per cent of the electricity that flows into it to produce light and letting the other 95 per cent escape into the air as heat.
Now, you could say this isn't a big issue in winter, since most homes and businesses welcome the lost heat, which may offset natural gas or electric heating costs. However, in the summer or in countries with a warm climate year-round, the heat released from incandescents makes air conditioners work harder – a double drain on energy.
CFLs, LEDs and other solid-state lighting technologies hardly release any heat, last much longer and are more durable – you don't get wobbly pieces of thin tungsten breaking in the grocery bag. That said, GE raises a good point: Do you ban the technology or do you establish strict standards by which all technologies must comply?
It's the same argument we're facing in Ontario with coal plants and energy-from-waste facilities. Do you shut down coal plants because they are big polluters that slowly kill the population with toxins and pump the atmosphere with global-warming causing greenhouse gases? Do you take the same approach with new technologies for turning municipal solid waste into energy?
Or, do you set limits on emissions and leave it for bidders to prove that their technology is compliant?
We must also consider a wildcard in the light-bulb debate: mercury.
Each CFL bulb contains an average of 5 milligrams of mercury, a nasty substance that can cause serious illness. Incandescent bulbs don't contain mercury. This means any major shift toward CFLs will require recycling programs that prevent that mercury from going into landfills.
Environmentalists, while encouraging recycling programs, argue that the extra coal-fired generation required to light an Edison bulb releases more mercury into the atmosphere than contained in a CFL fixture. That would be a good argument if all our electricity came from coal-fired generation, but that isn't the case in Ontario, where more than half comes from nuclear, hydroelectric and renewables.
And besides, if GE is claiming its new and improved incandescent bulb can achieve the efficiency of a CFL, then which do you go for: the one that contains mercury or the one that doesn't?
I would have never guessed that changing a light bulb could be so controversial. Where are low-cost, mercury-free, high-quality LEDs when you need them?
