BBC News has an interesting opinion piece written by Matt Prescott, arguing that governments struggling with energy scarcity should consider banning incandescent light bulbs.
Prescott, who runs http://www.banthebulb.org, a blog campaign to encourage more energy efficiency, says incandescent bulbs are so wasteful that "if they were invented today, it is highly unlikely they would be allowed onto the market."
The reason is that incandescent bulbs aren't primarily lights: they're heaters. Run electric current across the filament of an incandescent bulb and it gets so hot that it glows, giving off light. The rest of that heat energy is simply wasted. Compact fluorescent bulbs produce the same light but use 70 percent less energy.
It has been estimated that if every household in the US replaced just three of its incandescent light bulbs with energy-saving designs and used them for five hours per day, it would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 23 million tonnes, reduce electricity demand by the equivalent of 11 coal-fired power stations and save $1.8 billion [USD].
The trick, as he points out, is getting consumers to invest the higher initial costs for fluorescents. His reccomendations include banning incandescent bulbs and diverting subsidies for coal and nuclear power to reducing demand through more efficient bulbs.
The article also includes a comments section at the bottom, worth perusing for various points on the relative merits of the two lighting technologies.
You must be logged in to comment.