Success Stories – 2007

As 2007 comes to an end, it’s appropriate to look back at success.  Most recently, I’ve succeeded in replacing some more incandescent light bulbs.

CFL Replacements

Mildly surprisingly were year over year comparisons of my father’s electric bill: a 15% reduction in cost despite a 25% hike per kwh for generation service due to a 25% reduction in usage.  We had replaced a bunch in incandescent’s, one old CRT monitor, and tweaked a few computer settings, but otherwise no changes.  No new refrigerators, dishwashers, stoves or air conditioners.  Likely the savings won’t be as great percentage wise in the summer, which we don’t yet have the data to compare, but it still looks like $250/year in savings, and about 2,500kwh.

I’ve persuaded a few more people to try CFL’s too; my two brothers, two coworkers, an aunt and uncle, and a cousin.  Hopefully this blog has reached a few too, but I can’t say for certain.

Community

A big success, was the November Step it Up event, which a group I’m part of helped organize.  Almost 200 people came, exceeding expectations by a fair margin.

The group itself (Chicago Global Warming Meetup) is going well too.  We are resetting after November, and taking some time to do it due to the holidays, but it’s very promising.

Legislation

In a far less personal sense, 2007 has had it’s share of successes in the U.S. Congress.  The other day, the 2007 energy bill was signed by President Bush.  While some compromises were made to get it passed, that bill is a notable step.  Vehicle efficiency standards are up significantly (35mpg target). 

Lightbulb efficiency is required to increase by 2012.  Oddly, they only set the standard as 50%, when existing CFLs already achieve 75%.  I doubt that detail will matter since it is unlikely a 50% bulb will emerge or be chosen by consumers.  Consumers buy incandescents because they are accustomed to them, so I’m sure if they are forced to make a switch it will generally be to CFLs or LEDs.  Also notable in a section, "Consumer Education and Lamp Labeling", which instructs the Federal Trade Commission to use:

"labeling approaches that will help consumers to understand new high-efficiency lamp products"

About one hundred million per year has been appropriated for smart grid development, two hundred million for support of energy efficiency in developing countries, two hundred forty million for carbon capture and sequestration.

Illinois has been disappointing.  Not only has the mass transit funding issue still not been resolved, but little of note has been accomplished by our legislators there.

At work, In Progress

At work, I’ve made some changes in computer configuration, though I’m still waiting for them to get set as the standard practice across the company, and still hoping for double sided printing to become the default.  Maybe most importantly, I’m waiting for Wake-On-Lan support.

I’ve got a couple of other personal projects still on the table.  My apartment building needs a recycling program and needs to start having a policy of replacing in-unit lights with CFLs.  They currently use CFLs in the hallways and offices, but still install incandescent’s in the units themselves.  It’s somewhat amazing that they do, because in this building electric is included in the rent. The building/equipment is too old to meter each unit, so the waste from the in-unit incandescent’s is borne by the rental company.

Ways to reduce mercury

Concerned about mercury?  There are better ways to reduce usage of mercury than to spread fear about compact fluorescent lightbulbs.  For all the attention CFLs have been given, the state of linear fluorescents in offices, commercial spaces and industrial spaces has gone largely unnoticed.  Yet this is the biggest pie a the moment, and although relatively cheap alternatives are available, not all business are buying them.

One alternative is the EverLED lamps.  These lamps cost 3 times as much as a fluorescent tube, but last twice as long, contain no mercury and a save 25% more energy.  At a 50,000-70,000 lifetime these lamps will last 8 years at 24 hours per day.

Seeing as I’ve never seen an EverLED in action, I’ll present another alternative, the Phillips Alto II T8 lamps.  They use 1.7mg of mercury per lamp, 100% of the mercury used is recycled, and the lamps last 36,000-46,000 hours (that’s nearly 5-6 years at 24 hours per day) and efficiency is almost twice that of a CFL, or 8 times that of an incandescent.  I’m not sure if there available yet as I couldn’t find them at online retailers, but it’s possible the large distributors have them.

In fact, running the numbers for three sets of bulbs, LiteTronics F32T8, a Phillips Alto II (price not yet available, estimated at $90 for case of 25), and the EverLED bulbs comes up with the following results (11 cents per kwh US average, 14.26 cents CA, 16.55 cents NY, 18.85 cents CN):

	Cost	Hours	Watts	Per 10k hours (US average)	Per 10k hours (CA)	Per 10k hours (NY)	Per 10k hours (CN)
Alto I	$2.50	30,000	32	$33.67	$46.47	$53.79	$61.15
Alto II	$3.60	46,000	32	$33.61	$46.41	$53.74	$61.10
EverLED	$150.00	70,000	24	$47.83	$55.65	$61.15	$66.67

All three are very close in operational costs, so why not give an EverLED a try?  In a few years, perhaps LED based alternatives to CFLs will be available too.  That doesn’t change the fact that incandescents need to be replaced today.

Devil in Disguise

After writing a response to another CFL doubter, I think I let this guy off the hook too easy.  Since 1996 D.C. Agrawal has been conducting research on incandescent bulbs, and has this year taken it upon himself to post a great deal of misinformation about CFL bulbs.  I’ve also seen his "response" in other places on the net.

The thing is, this is, on a smaller scale, the exact same kind of scientific infidelity which explains how we have scientists out there still claiming that there is no way humans are causing global warming, that smoking doesn’t kill, etc.

The real devil in disguise is those individuals who hide behind claims of scientific freedom.  That is harmful to policy, to public opinion, and to the future of scientific freedom, which despite it’s abuse is fully justified.

Response to another CFL doubter

D.C. Agarwal from CFL – Devil in Disguise, decided to post a load of information he believes in my letter to another CFL doubter.  D.C. has one or two valid points, but makes all the common mistakes as well.  I also have reason to question his sincerity.  This is the first time I’ve run across a doubter who seemed to have a motive other than just being egregiously misinformed.

Read on, first he says:

CFL low-energy light bulbs are up to twenty times more expensive to produce than the standard tungsten-filament bulbs

To which I say, this is unimportant when the cost to produce is under $3.00 and differential cost to operate is $45.00.  Dollar stupid and penny smart?  Such a common mistake.

Also, he says:

You might also like to know that the manufacture process for CFLs uses up to ten times the energy used in the manufacture of traditional bulbs.

Which is the same mistake.  It’s impossible that the manufacturing energy exceeds the energy saved because manufacturers aren’t in the business of selling products for $3.00 which require $45.00 of energy inputs.  Energy is not free anywhere.

Next:

In addition, CFL’s need much more ventilation (top and bottom).

It’s situational, but sometimes true.  Many newer bulbs need much less.  It’s a reasonable point except that CFLs can be used in 95% or greater of the situations an incandescent can.  Also, incandescents have limitations as well associated with their waste heat, and so in many cases you may find you can use a CFL where an incandescent could not have been used.

Then:

Low-energy light bulbs do not give off a steady stream of light as they flicker fifty times a second, which can be expected to contribute to health and safety problems, with associated financial costs, down the line.

What he describes is an old lamp using a magnetic ballast.  Current bulbs, using an electronic ballast, such as Energy Star rated bulbs, do not.   I have personal experience with this as I’ve bought both Energy Star bulbs and non.  I did notice the flickering with the inferior bulb, but not with the Energy Star bulbs.  I understand where the misconception comes from, but that doesn’t change that it’s wrong.

Then:

A technical study of ERTL (East) Calcutta on CFL’s shows that these lamps discharges ultra violet rays which are harm full to eyes and causes skin cancer.

This is the only point I can’t refute.  It’s true a CFL can produce UV rays.  Incandescents do as well, but generally less.  Regardless most information I’ve seen states there is no risk associated with that level of UV radiation which is many many orders of magnitude less than what 30 minutes of sun exposure will cause.  And I also know that many studies suggest that while overdosing on UV is definitely harmful, the human body needs a limited amount daily as well.

Then:

But perhaps worst of all, is the fact that low-energy bulbs are currently made using toxic materials. Chief among them is mercury, a substance that, ironically, the EU banned from its landfill sites just last year. For the EU nations special recycling arrangements will have to be made to dispose of CFLs thus incurring a further cost. With between 3 and 5 milligrams of mercury in each CFL and with an estimated 150 million CFLs sold in the United States in 2006, that’s a whole lot of non-recycled bulbs that could end up in garbage dumps. Mercury can affect the nervous system, damage the kidney and liver and, in sufficient quantities, can kill. No wonder scientists and environmentalists are worried.

Net sum, CFLs produce less mercury than current alternatives.  In addition you have the option of reducing this further by recycling.  Incandescent bulbs contain lead too and ideally would be recycled too (I recycled mine when I replaced them with CFLs).  D.C., what do you do with you’re incandescent bulbs?

Then:

All the CFL manufactures claims its long life more than 5 years or in technical terms 6000 hrs to 10000 hrs. Is it true in Indian conditions? The answer is not at all in Indian condition. CFL’s have built in electronic Blasts (PCB), which require a constant voltage supply of electric as other appliances require. In India there is regular voltage fluctuation in power supply. So the Life of CFL’s is very much less than the declared life by the manufacturers. Nobody will use voltage stabilizers for CFL’s. In India All the companies are selling the CFL’s on one year warranty. Now all the ELCOMA members have decided to withdraw this warranty. Why? The data of all companies shows that replacement of CFL from the markets is more than 20-40% in one year of warranty periods. It means that mostly CFL failed to complete the 1500 hrs life instead of declared life of 6000hrs.The study of these failure CFL’s shows that 80% lamps failed due to failure of electronic blast due to irregular voltage power supply, use of inverters & generators.

I would suggest a better course of action here would be requiring all CFLs sold in India to be dimmable, rather than avoiding them entirely.  The cost will be about 2 times more, but still an order of magnitude less than the savings.   It’s a good point for certain markets, but in markets with reliable power systems it’s mute.

Then:

In Europe the ban on incandescent lamps, due to come into effect in under two years, does not give much time to EU member states to plan for the changes, a decision taken centrally without consultation with member nations. Thus the EU has chosen to pursue the same dictatorial path chosen by Cuba’s Fidel Castro (in an attempt to ease the strain on the island’s hard-pressed electricity grid) two years ago.

In Europe most bulbs sold are already CFLs.  They’ve been in use for years, even when they flickered, had slow warmup, and had odd coloring.  The savings was worth those inconveniences to millions of consumers.  With those issues solved there is not much point in the incandescent left.

Then:

The potentially hazardous CFL is being pushed by companies like Wal-Mart–a distributor of GE, Royal Philips, Osram Sylvania and Lights of America which wants to sell 100 million CFL’s at 5 times the cost of incandescent bulbs during 2007 and surprisingly, became an environmentalists?

It’s surprising you should question others motives.  I know it’s the rage to suggest any company making money is doing evil, but that just isn’t true.  But as long as we are questioning motives, how about your’s?  A little research shows that you’re a scientist who’s primary field of study is incandescent lamps!  Yes, I’ve found your papers (also (2)).  I’ve been wondering why anyone would have a motive to criticize CFLs other than plain being misinformed.  Now I’ve finally found one.

Then:

Greenpeace also recommends CFL’s, while simultaneously bemoaning contamination caused by a mercury thermometer factory in India. But where are mercury-containing CFL’s made? Not in the U.S. or EU, under strict environmental regulation but in India and China, where environmental standards are virtually nonexistent.

Mercury thermometers contain 100 to 500 times more mercury per item than CFLs.  They also do not help prevent mercury emissions through power consumption.  D.C. Are you defending that factory?  That’s the height of hypocrisy if so.  Greenpeace is just making a tactical tradeoff.  I’m sure they would support the ban of CFLs if LEDs were marketable replacements, as when that day comes, so will I.  But hoping for LEDs does not change the comparison of CFLs and incandescents.

Then:

We can understand easily that in a housing unit we use at the most one piece of thermometer. Can you imagine? What will be happen when we use at least 4-5 pieces or more mercury based CFL’s in a house?

If you use 5 CFLs in a house with a mercury thermometer you’ll raise you’re houses mercury content by 1%-5% depending on the type of bulbs you use.  FIX THE THERMOMETER  BEFORE YOU WORRY ABOUT CFLS!!!

Response from Representative Schakowsky

I tried to send a copy of the letter concerning a warning label for incandescent lightbulb packaging to my representative in the U.S. Congress.  Apparently it got misdirected to, Janice Schakowsky, representative for the 9th district which starts just across the street (actually I’m no longer certain, I know I voted in Rahm Emanuel’s district last election, and I know I went to the right place because the polls are in my buildings lobby, maybe I’ve been redistricted?).

Regardless, I received a reply, quoted below:

Dear Mr. Baker

Thank you for contacting me to let me know of your support for compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs).  I appreciate hearing your views on this critical issue, and I strongly agree with you.

As you know, there are numerous benefits to replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs.  CFLs are four times more efficient and last up to 10 times longer than incandescents.  In addition to supporting CFL use, I am working in Congress to pass legislation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and promote more efficient energy use.  For instance, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1506, the Fuel Economy Reform Act, introduced by Representative Markey.  This bill would increase existing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards by 4 percent per year through 2018, saving 2.2 million barrels of oil per day and reducing carbon dioxide emissions by over 370 million metric tons per year by 2022.  With fuel costs rising for all Americans and the dangers of global warming becoming more evident, Congress must act to increase CAFE standards.  I believe increasing fuel economy standards is one of the best ways we can promote conservation, reduce gasoline prices, achieve energy independence, and reduce carbon emissions.

During the first 100 hours of this Congress, I voted in favor of H.R. 6, the Clean Energy Act of 2007.  This bill would repeal many of the tax subsidies handed to major oil companies and collect long overdue unpaid royalties for oil exploration along the United States coastline.  H.R. 6 would place these funds, about $14 billion, in the new Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewable Reserve, to fund renewable research which is critical to lessoning our dependence on foreign oil and creating a more environment-friendly economy.

Rising energy prices and our changing climate demand a new energy vision that reduces our reliance on fossil fuels while limiting harmful emissions and environmental damage to precious natural resource.  I believe that we can accomplish those critical goals in a way that creates jobs and reduces energy cost, and I will do whatever I can to make that happen.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me on this important subject.  Please feel free to contact me in the future if I may be of further assistance.

Sincerely

Jan Schakowsky

Member of Congress

H.R 1506 (summary) is a good step in the right direction, probably more important than my little warning label and H.R. 6 has many good points as well.  The message I received in the response seems to be that Representative Schakowsky agrees, but is spending her time on other issues. 

I suppose that’s a fair enough explanation.  Hopefully it remains in mind, as vice chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce: Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, it’s precisely the type of legislation she is responsible for.  If you live in District 9 and believe in this idea, contact Representative Schakowsky yourself.

Also, if you’re in District 1, write Representative Rush, who is chairman of the same committee.