Fluorescent Light Bulbs: Save Something... i.e. Yourself, Earth, Money [Part 2]

Imagine this: the United States government mandates that all new refrigerators sold in the US must come with fluorescent light bulbs rather than standard incandescent light bulbs. Even better would be if whole states mandated cities to install fluorescent light bulbs on highway and street lights. Read further for some statistics to get an idea of how much electricity and money mandates like this would save everyone.

I've just recently picked up a package of three "ecobulb" fluorescent light bulbs to replace the incandescent light bulbs in my desk lamps. Do you ever see these energy-saving fluorescent light bulbs and think, "Wow those are tall! They'd stick too far out of my lighting socket!" Well, I've lined up my old vs. new light bulbs, and to be honest the fluorescent light bulb is taller, but by mere millimeters. So, all in all, there's really no physical difference, other than the aesthetics of the bulb. You've got twirly things vs. a bulby thing. That's about it.

What about the energy-savings? An average 60-watt [incandescent] light bulb outputs around 900 lumens. One of my new [fluorescent] light bulbs outputs clean white light, versus dirty-feeling yellow light. It gives me the same 900 lumens, although I dare you to guess how many watts of energy it uses to do the same job.
.
...
.....
...
.
That's right: 13 watts!

You're thinking, holy smokes, that's amazing! It's true, it is amazing. What's better? You're familiar, I'm sure, with how hot those old light bulbs get. You can't touch a lightbulb, Oh No, nor can you replace one until 5 or 10 minutes after it's been turned off. These new fluorescent light bulbs give off 60-75% less heat! I can actually adjust my lamp after I turn it on now. Before, I wouldn't dare burn myself on my hot lamp trying to adjust it so I can actually read.

LightsofAmerica sums it up: "90% of the energy consumed by an incandescent bulb is wasted heat. This makes the bulb extremely hot to touch and very unsafe." They also say that fluorescent light bulbs only reach a maximum of 90 degrees F. A jacuzzi is usually 100-104 degrees, so you must realize that this bulb is actually very cool in comparison to the incandescent light bulb that we're all so accustomed to, which can get as hot as 350 degrees F!

But why is it that, according to Deborah Mitchell, only 5% of the light bulbs purchased in the US last year were these superior fluorescents? Cost. It's true that I'll likely pay $3 for a single fluorescent bulb versus $1+ for a typical incandescent bulb. However, FLUORESCENT LIGHTBULBS CAN LAST UP TO 10 TIMES LONGER THAN INCANDESCENT BULBS! What does this mean? Well, you buy less bulbs and pollute the environment less- landfills fill up less quickly and stay cleaner... Oh, the cost benefits? You'll probably save between $50 and $100 over the lifetime of the bulb in electricity costs, assuming that the price of electricity doesn't rise in the next 9 years (the average life span of a fluorescent bulb based on an average of 3 hours of use per day), which is unlikely. So, the savings are actually even greater! In fact, it's even worth it to stock up on fluorescent bulbs now and save them for years to come.

I find it hard to believe that I was so ignorant to the benefits of these bulbs for so long. I've always known that they are more energy efficient, but I have been skeptical about whether or not their higher cost was really offset by savings on the electricity bill. Well... it's quite obvious now. And, it is safe to say that I will never again buy an incandescent light bulb. I've only briefly touched upon the benefits (can you believe it!?) of fluorescent light bulbs in this column. The links in this article actually lead to great sites with a ton of statistics and interesting information. So, please do yourself ($$) and the environment a favor and stay away from those nasty old incandescent light bulbs.

Fast Company says that if every American household swapped an incandescent for a fluorescent, the oil and greenhouse gas savings would equate to pulling 1.3 million cars off the road.

Thanks, CharityGuide, for giving us some final insight on this matter:

"If every household in the United States installed just one 15-watt compact fluorescent light bulb to replace one 60-watt incandescent light bulb, we could save enough energy to provide power to 1.5 million people."

The Air Car!

I came across this article on The Oil Drum where Big Gav was quickly recapping many of the habitual changes I've proposed as a means by which to conserve oil and eliminate fossil fuel use. Observe:

"These [solutions] include expanding mass transit systems, redesigning cities and towns to make them easier to walk or cycle around (or combining both of these approaches in "transit oriented development"), making greater use of electric cycles (or mopeds), using lightweight materials in vehicle construction, and - most commonly - switching to electric vehicles (particularly, in the medium term, plug-in hybrids)."

An emerging alternative, as the article goes on to reveal, is this concept of air-driven cars. I know, I first thought, "Say what?! Flying cars!?", too. No... what this concept proposes is cars driven by compressed air!

To make compressed air, though, requires fossil fuels because, well, how else is the electricity that needs to do the compressing going to get made? This is the same problem as with making hydrogen fuel for cars. It still requires, at this point in time, fossil fuels to make these alternative forms of energy holders. I say energy holders because, like Big says, "it is an energy storage medium, not an energy source." Fossil fuels are the energy source.

The article says that a company is currently building a plant to market and sell a compressed-air driven car. Many question the legitimacy of this company and/or its vehicle. Even if they are able to get cars rolling off the assembly line, a source of compressed air (perhaps one that can presently pump air into tires, etc.) would need to be within 150 km (93 miles) of every location in the US for everyone to be able to use one. So, as with hydrogen, it looks like California shall lead, and other major cities shall follow. Eventually the mountains and deserts will have their compressed air providing utilities as well.

Now if you're a city dweller, driving a compressed-air vehicle shouldn't cause you any problems because you most likely don't drive long distances (or at least no often), and probably aren't too far from a gas station. The cars are slated to be slightly cheaper than gas-powered cars, coming in at about half the price. But, do you get what you pay for?

Apparently these vehicles will begin to be produced in the near future in India, with several emerging countries like Colombia and Thailand following suit. What I failed to previously mention is that these Air Cars can also use gasoline with an apparent range now of 1240+ miles.

This figure boasts "claimed efficiencies of up to 70%."* Whether or not this concept actually comes to fruition is separate from the fact that compressed air is a much safer propellant than gasoline, and as such driving would become a much less hazardous task. Something to think about.