I’ve been reading about light bulbs. 90% of the energy that goes to a lightbulb gets lost in heat. According to Amory Lovins, the average US home runs 30 lightbulbs five hours a day, and if all American homes replaced just 3 of these bulbs with long-lasting bulbs, Americans could save electricity equivalent to the output of 11 fossil-fuel-fired power plants. In turn they would eliminate about 23 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year — and save about $1,800,000,000.
I’ve been playing with a graphic concept to try and make the link between a simple act like changing your light bulb and the impacts of climate change. This rough doesn’t quite achieve what I’m looking for, but the idea is to extend the joke across a range of impacts.
男物 浴衣
More about the deceptive arguments behind banning light bulbs,
with a referenced rundown of why the arguments don’t hold
on “Freedom Light Bulb” blog
(continued)
Even at peak times (centering around 5–7 pm temperate zones),
limited coal use and emissions are caused relative to any electricity used.
Peak times brings on quicker responding electricity generation, such as gas or hydro powered turbines, because of heating, cooking stoves and kettles coming on (rather than any lighting).
Therefore at such times, the light bulbs proportionally use sources with much less emissions than from coal.
So the idea that even (generously, as reference linked to US Dept of Energy stats etc, on below website) the 1–2% of overall grid electricity saved from banning the incandescents translates into 1–2% less of any fuel burned, does not hold.
It may seem tongue-in-cheek to suggest that no coal savings at all apply:
But in a context of just 30–35% efficient plants overcoming 6–8% grid transmission losses (USA, UK and elsewhere) it is in practice true.
But of course, it is much more fun (and profitable) to indoctrinate kids to switch bulbs to save the planet!
As it happens, CO2 and other gas emissions may increase by switching away from incandescent light bulbs,
especially in cooler climates, as shown by Canadian, Finnish etc research, independently of one another, as linked via the below website.
That is, when the electric light bulb heat from a low carbon emission (like nuclear, hydro, solar, wind) power plant source,
is replaced by CO2 emitting heat fuel (like coal, gas, oil).
Saving emissions (whatever about CO2!) is a good idea.
But light bulb bans don’t achieve it.
Coal is by far the main fossil fuel environmental concern with electricity use,
with around twice the CO2 emissions of either natural gas or oil in equivalent electricity generation.
Light bulbs don’t burn coal, and they don’t release CO2 gas.
Power plants might — and they might not.
And if they do, then coal and its emissions can be treated in various ways.
Effectively the same coal gets burned regardless of whether your light bulb is on or off:
Relevant domestic lighting is mostly used from 5pm onwards.
Coal plants are on all the time at basically the same output level.
Slow and cheap.
They can’t really be turned down at night, as it takes too long to power up in the morning, and to some extent this is true of other base loading power, like nuclear energy.
Hence much fuel burned that noone uses. Hence cheap electricity at night. Hence the lighting causing no energy use and no CO2 or mercury emissions, that would not have occured anyway.
(contined)
“If you haven’t replaced all your incandescent bulbs with Compact Fluorescents… [YOU SPELLED IT LIKE ‘FLOUR,’ GENIUS!]… you’re contributing to Global Warming(,) and driving Polar Bears toward extinction. Ban the Bulb!”
If you were a shrink, and I quoted yourself to YOU, I’d be diagnosed with DEMENTIA!
Now, it’s time to quote ME:
“‘Save money’: let fat, black, angry Commie-Libs invade your home and throw away brand-new incandescents.”
“Live safer: keep mercury-filled fluorescents in your children’s home.”
“Commie-Libs are EXACTLY like fluorescents: twisted, expensive, easy to replace, not too bright, and full of ‘legal’ toxins.”
“Scare off a Lefty: ask HIM questions, TOO.”
“When they take any freedom U have Left, give ‘em a Right hook!”
“GOD’S truth is VERY inconvenient. Sorry, Al.”
“Al’s a church-goin’, good, ol’ boy, right? At least, on TV. So why doesn’t he care what GOD has to say about ‘global warming’?”
“Dear Environmentalists, Your cool gadgets are made from OIL!”
“Environ-MENTAL-ists.”
“EN-vi-RON-mentalists.”
“‘Win’ a debate with a Christian: change the subject, throw a hissy-fit, cut him off, invoke The Power of The F-Word, and quickly leave the room. He’ll be shaking in his American-made boots.”
“Smart Cars & speed bumps slow you down… for about 2 seconds.”
“A truck hit a Smart Car: no one could find it.”
“A Smart Car had a wreck: it became it’s own bumper sticker.”
“A Smart Car got totaled: Progressive called it, ‘bundling’.”
“A Smart Car got totaled: the insurance company replaced it with Hot Wheels.”
“A Smart Car got totaled: someone leaned on it.”
“A Smart Car got totaled: the insurance company sent another one by UPS.”
“A Smart Car got totaled: LEGOs were flying everywhere!”
“A Smart Car had a ‘fender bender’. (Actually, the whole car IS a fender.)”
“A ‘fender bender’ to YOU and ME is a TOTAL LOSS to a Smart Car!”
“A Smart Car stole my parking spot: I threw it in my trunk.”
“Smart Cars don’t save oil: plastic COMES from oil.”
“Electric cars: making power plants use even MORE oil.”
“The Anti-Oil Campaign is powered by OIL.”
Hey! Quick question that’s completely off topic. Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My website looks weird when viewing from my iphone4. I’m trying to find a theme or plugin that might be able to correct this issue. If you have any recommendations, please share. With thanks!
Kristján Kristjánsson
shut up geek
Hey Kritján,
Mercury in the bulbs is, agreed, an issue. But if your energy comes from coal, for example, the mercury content of the coal burnt over the lifetime of a conventional bulb far exceeds the mercury in a CFL. Personally, I like the way LED technology is looking as a long term solution, but the cost is way out beyond CFLs at the moment.
CFLs are not perfect. But there comes a point when the perfect is the enemy of the good, and when it comes to CO2 emissions, which today are the single most dangerous pollutant on the planet, CFLs are definitely better than incandescent bulbs.
–b
This is bullshit as pen and teller would say
the ECO bulb is not enviroment frindly product it has mercury and other chemical that are hazardous to the enviromen. it takes 12x the same engery to make compact flurucent bulb then the old incandescent bulb.
it just a marketing scam to sell more compact flurucent bulb.
BE ECO AND SAVE THE POLAR BEARS
Your a moron.
Polar bear populations are steady. There is no link between melting ice caps and declining polar bear populations. Have you ever asked yourself how polar bears survived the thousands of years when earth was much warmer than it is right now, because they did, and polar bears did not go extinct without sea ice. Stop using this BS propaganda.
Ha! I’m a marketing guy’s nightmare. The use of the polar bear by Coca-Cola didn’t stick in my brain as a branding image — guess I’ve been too distracted lately with all this “bloke coke” nonsense 🙂
Interesting, and right in many places (don’t debate the science, e.g.) but wrong about the power of polar bears to convey the message. We’ve polled on this (has he?) and the extinction of polar bears is a “wake up” point for people who think of climate change as a harmless change in the weather. They’re positioned to be the canaries in the coal mine of climate change, and there’s a massive segment of the public, not really environmentalists, who do care about them dying out. Concern about the well being of “Charismatic MegaFauna” such as whales, harp seals, and pandas have been driving a wide swath of the public to environmental action for decades, and there’s no sign of that sloping off. There’s big symbolic value, and big psychological power, in these emblematic species. There’s an anthropomorphic effect: people see themselves in these beasts, they see their kids in polar bear cubs, they sense that where they go, we go.
There’s a conflict of interest here. Ogilvy and Mather sell Coke. Coke uses cute little cuddly polar bears as advertising. Coke doesn’t want to see polar bears politicized.
Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean I’m not right. 😉
–b
Interesting take on communicating climate change by Jon Miller from ad agency Ogilvy & Mather
Here
It’s true though. Most people are very surprised when they hear how much energy can be saved through such small, private efforts.
Energy saving lightbulbs, filling the kettle with just the right amount of water, washing the dishes by hand, stop using the standby function on electronic items .….etc.
It makes combating climate change seem less daunting and massively overwhelming, when you break it down to such small, easy to accomplish levels.
People think they can’t make a difference because it’s all down to governments and conventions and grappling with monolithic oil companies, which is beyond them as individuals.
Small things like this show that’s not the case.
I love it! Very Clever.
I really like the graphic, Brian! I have a couple of thoughts about it, but I’m not a marketing expert 😉 I’ll leave that to the pros.
All the folks I know in the US do their best to conserve energy and use long-lasting bulbs, but obviously the graphic would be preaching to the choir if I showed it to them. If you can educate the uninformed and convert the skeptical, you’ve won a great battle.
I don’t have the surveys onhand (I can dig around for them later), but thanks to skyrocketing gas prices, many Americans are becoming more energy-conscious in general, which is quite encouraging. The big challenge is to get people to connect “hm, my electric bill is really damned high” with “hm, my energy might be coming from a petroleum source”. How do we get people to figure that out?
Man, it’s so many connections to make. Bulbs to fossil fuels to global warming… I guess it’s one step at a time.
That’s the end of my navel-gazing, tangential-thinking comment. Sorry ’bout the spam!