Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

Ban the bulb?

The word "ban" is not one that I ever like to use -- it goes against my rather libertarian views.

However, I'm wondering if their might just be grounds to ban the good old incandescent bulb in the wake of our nation-wide power problems, and indeed -- the looming global power crisis.

Let's face it, regular old incandescent bulbs are very much past their best-by date.

It's technology that's a century and a quarter old with its only benefit being a very low cost of manufacture.

Plain old bulbs based on a bit fine tungsten wire glowing in a glass envelope filled with inert gas are inefficient and short-lived. This is not what we should be using at a time when the issues of energy and resource conservation are becoming critical to the planet's future.

Over in the USA, and more specifically: the state of California, at least one law-maker has mooted the prospect of banning old fashioned bulbs as a way of helping reducing that state's energy woes.

I'm starting to think that we should consider the same here.

It has just been announced that the Electricity Commission has approved a plan by Transpower to build a huge $880 million power line through the Waikato to Auckland. This line will not only be visually polluting and potentially increase some people's chances of contracting various forms of caner -- but it may be largely unnecessary.

Your average modern compact fluorescent (CF) bulb uses just one fifth the energy of an equivalent old-fashioned bulb and, according to the figures I have, around 20% of electricity generated goes into providing energy for lighting.

A bit of simple math shows therefore, that if we converted all that old-bulb lighting to CF, we'd be doing the same thing as boosting our generation and distribution capacity by as much as 16% -- which is a *huge* amount.

Please visit the sponsor!

With the average CF bulb costing around $3-$5, I think a tax of (say) $2.50 per tungsten bulb ought to do the trick.

What's more, the money raised by this tax could be reinvested in the construction of renewable energy resources for the benefit of the entire country.

Given the choice of paying $3 for a tungsten bulb that's likely to last just a few months -- and a CF that will use less power and last for a couple of years or more, I think you can see what most people will choose.

Now I honestly can't see *any* reason why this isn't the best damned energy conservation plan that's been proposed in the past 10 years.

Instead of constantly hiking power generation and distribution prices in order to pay for additional capacity -- why not hit those who are mis-using energy through the use of ultra-inefficient lighting and invest *that* money into long-term energy generation/distribution infrastructure?

Come on government -- I'm even advocating a new *tax* here, that really ought to grab your attention and cause a wave of bureaucratic salivation.

And before you nay-sayers pop your heads up -- yes I know that *some* CF bulbs are not as bright as claimed but you really have to shop around and check the light-temperature of what you're buying.

A while back I bought a selection of CF bulbs and compared them.

The colours ranged from a kind of warm tan/orange glow to a harsh, almost steel-blue colour.

The warm/orange bulbs didn't seem as bright as the white/blue ones but the latter made the room feel appear to be a lot colder.

Fortunately, there were also some nice intermediate shades that provided ample luminance without being harsh on the eye.

The vast majority of lighting in my house is now CF, with old-fashioned filament bulbs being confined solely to those rooms which see a lot of on-off action, such as the toilet or back porch.

I'd like to hear from the Energy Minister (do we have such a beast?) why the government isn't being pro-active in getting rid of the nasty tungsten bulb in favour of the CF. Why are we needlessly *wasting* valuable oil reserves and throwing huge volumes of carbon into the atmosphere when simply updating our lighting technology could slash our energy requirements by as much as 16%?

Let's hope someone rides this pony into parliament and rattles a few cages.

Is this a good idea?

We tax other forms of inefficiencies, why not tax grossly inefficient lighting by way of a tax on tungsten bulbs?

Will LEDs eventually replace both tungsten and CF as the ultimate in efficient lighting?

Have your say on this...

Oh, and don't forget today's sci/tech news headlines

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font