Global Warming Solutions: If You Haven't Already Done This, You are Wasting Money
In a recent article I described how a detailed analysis of energy production and usage in the US shows that about 51% of the energy produced is wasted. One of the best ways of addressing our energy problems is energy efficiency. True, we need to do more: carbon sequestration (saline wetlands and trees in all but the northernmost latitudes are the best ways of sequestering carbon) and alternative energy are necessary. But even without changing our energy production, we can get a good head start on dealing with global warming by improving energy efficiency. In John and Teresa Heinz Kerry's book, This Moment on Earth, they describe how Texas Instruments was able to design a factory in Texas where energy efficiency was the primary design element that saved them so much money that it allowed building in Texas to be competitive with outsourcing to India. They saved money, saved energy and kept jobs in the United States all by designing with energy efficiency in mind.
Energy efficiency is the smartest step towards dealing with global warming.
There are many ways that you as a private citizen can be part of the solution. Carpooling, using mass transit, bicycling, walking, buying a hybrid car, turning your thermostat down a degree in the winter, and up a degree in summer, turning off lights, insulation, etc. are all ways where YOU can both save money in the long run and save energy. They all make sense both for your budget AND for dealing with global warming. You should do all you can to do these things. But there is one that is such a no-brainer, that if you haven't already done it, you are losing. The number one change you should have made at least 5 years ago is to switch your light bulbs to compact fluorescent bulbs.
The one difficulty is that the initial cost is higher. You have to shell out more money when you buy a compact fluorescent bulb than when you buy a regular bulb. But...the overall savings are pretty big. For every regular bulb you replace with a compact fluorescent bulb, you save $35-$60 on energy bills over the life of EACH bulb (5-10 years depending on usage). My wife and I replaced all our bulbs about 6 years ago. We have saved about $200 over that time. And saved thousands of pounds of carbon from going into the atmosphere. They are more convenient, too, because they last 8-10 times longer than regular bulbs, meaning you don't have to change bulbs as often. Compact fluorescents contain more mercury than regular bulbs, but if you account for the mercury emissions from producing the extra energy that a regular bulb uses, you still wind up putting less mercury into our environment. For a full fact sheet on the advantages of compact fluorescent bulbs, go here.
Have you started saving money and the environment yet? Compact fluorescent bulbs are now sold in many hardware stores, some grocery stores, at CostCo...yes, even at Wal-Mart if you want to buy them from THAT irresponsible, law-breaking company. If there is no source near you, you can buy them here.
If you haven't done it yet, I don't really know why. There is no disadvantage to you in the long run and many advantages to you and to our children. We have, by most estimates, 10 years to mitigate global warming. Make your first year's actions be, at a bare minimum, making your life more energy efficient. As Texas Instruments discovered, there is no real downside to doing this.
For more ideas, please see the Union of Concerned Scientists website, as well as my articles on saline wetlands and on one particular idea for planting trees.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Compact Fluorescent Bulbs | energy efficiency | Global Warming | save money
Hate to say I told you so....
Submitted by mole333 on 29 April 2007 - 11:15am.
So I won't ; -)
Curmudgeons of the world unite.
LOL :)
Submitted by NanceConfer on 29 April 2007 - 11:39am.
THK's blog tour has started/continued some good talks about what real people can really do.
A wonderful unschooling Mom (WUM) and I were agreeing yesterday that a lot of what is being suggested comes down to being the frugal shoppers or re-users we already are. This was prompted by the thread at Cocking a Snook -- http://cockingasnook.wordpress.com/2007/04/26/can-you-believe-whos-
here-blog-tour-comes-to-snook/ -- and we talked about how we don't always need to reinvent the wheel but just be more encouraging about some of the things a lot of us already do.
For instance, in addition to the name brands of places to make and receive donations -- Freecycle, Goodwill, etc. -- WUM told me about a local place that her Mom helped to start.
We live in an area where there are a lot of extremely affluent people and then the rest of us. The affluent have kids too, it turns out 
, and when they outgrow or never use clothing, they are sometimes encouraged to donate to an outfit called the 4C Club (a link? yep, they have one -- http://www.the4cclub.org/).
"Caring Children/Clothing Children, Inc. is a charity for children. We are a non-profit, all volunteer organization which collects very good clothing that school children have outgrown. These clothes are passed to needy children by way of The 4-C Club store which is located in Stuart, Florida.
"The clothing is collected, sorted, and presented in a department store fashion by an army of volunteers. The recipients are qualified by recognized charitable agencies that provide children with vouchers to shop free for three outfits each including new shoes, socks and underwear. Used athletic equipment, children's books, stuffed animals, novelties and baby items are also available."
It's a local project that I had never heard of and there are probably a lot of these things we could all become more aware of.
Nance
Dim Bulbs To Me
Submitted by JJ Ross on 29 April 2007 - 12:16pm.
or at least they were the last time I tried using compact fluorescents, just 2-4 years ago? Hated it, HATED it -- I am too old and could not see well by their supposedly equivalent light. *Especially* not to read and do kakuro and crosswords, etc. I just have to have really good light -- so are you saying those formerly thin, pale (yes, and flickery) lightbulbs are now strong and steady enough for even old readers like me to love?
Well...
Submitted by mole333 on 29 April 2007 - 12:39pm.
Comparison shopping applies to everything. In Germany the switch to CFL bulbs started 15 years ago with few complaints. My German friends think Americans are stupid (their word!) for being so slow to change.
What can I tell you? You make your own decisions but we are fine with them and I know many others who are fine with them. We know we have some big problems over the horizon, including some pretty big flooding in Florida. Solutions aren't just for thinking about, they have to be implemented. I can make suggestions but the action has to come from our governments (with pressure from us) and from individuals. Some would say we need a change of thinking away from the "can't do" to a "can do" attitude. I am trying to encourage that kind of idea, inspired by the many stories in the Kerry book, that we HAVE solutions and WE can be part of the solution rather than sitting around waiting for the flood to rise.
So, many like CFL bulbs as their first step to a solution. We are among them.
Don't mind me
Submitted by JJ Ross on 29 April 2007 - 7:13pm.
because I was really hoping (expecting even) you'd tell me they are much improved now, and getting better all the time. That was your cue, what happened?? I guess I broke the cardinal lawyer's rule about not asking a question if you don't already know the answer. Darn, I always mess that one up when I really get interested and engaged -- sorry mole!
It was supposed to be a compact, energy-efficient softball for you. ;-)
Just get tired...
Submitted by mole333 on 29 April 2007 - 8:27pm.
Sometimes I just get the same old questions over and over and get impatient with them. I know you are not a troll, but I get this kind of response from trolls all the time and, as with any product you will ever buy, there is a range of quality and styles to suit a variety of tastes.
My first CFL bulb was 10 years ago and it didn't last long, so wasn't worth it. Later tried another version and it was great. There are supposedly natural spectrum CFL bulbs, though I am not sure they are THAT good. Maybe they are. But it will be some time before we need to change a bulb so it may be years before we have a chance to test it...darn those long lived bulbs!
T'aint nuthin but a thang
Submitted by M. Loutre on 29 April 2007 - 8:52pm.
I know I'm not a troll too, so it's really kinda nice that we agree on that part. (Shall we now sing "Kumbayah" together? *bigottergrin*)
Looking around the current apartment while typing this message, I see that with the minor exceptions of light bulbs that live in the fridge, the oven, and the mickeywave, then there isn't an unnatural non-solar light source in here that *isn't* either CFL or just plain FL. Wow.
(Windows -- non-Micro$loth ones, I mean real windows as in aperture thingies -- *do* count as solar light sources for at least part of the day, right?)
So, anyway, crappy color temperature slash broken-spectrum specs ain't exactly the driving force here. But I really do I could find actual full-spectrum CFL lamps like the ones I already have in my FLs here on Planet Otter.
Full-spectrum CFL lamps may indeed be available, in fact I assume that they already are, except for that they are neither commonly-available nor even relatively cost-effective. Like certain endangered medical procedures, apparently they are still safe legal and rare.
For the nonce, though, I haven't seen full-spectrum CFL lamps lurking on the shelves in any of the places I customary dawdle in the aisles. At such time as I do, then I will take notice and grok them accordingly.
However... since as you duly noted, these damn things do last forever, then I reckon as how by the time I'm finally shopping for some new replacements CFLs the nicer, friendlier, kindly-to-the-amygdala versions will be as ubiquitous as wingnut bloggers regurgitating recycled RW talking points...
Well...
Submitted by mole333 on 30 April 2007 - 11:52am.
I hate CFLs because their color temperatures really suck.
Submitted by M. Loutre on 29 April 2007 - 2:39pm.
That being said, I use them anyway -- but until 5200+ degree Kelvin (i.e., in the range of natural daylight color temperature) CFL's become available, I'm still gonna be grumpily curmudgeonacious about it anyway. I'm a recovering movie & tv gaffer, color temperature readings matter to me, what can I say.
Jeebus K. Ryst, mole333, if I didn't know better I'd think that reading that there TMOE book had some kind of actual effect on you.
JJ, Nance, et al -- since the virtual blog tour in re THK's recent Womens' Health & the Environment conference in Pixbug has been working out so well, we've just about convinced the publishing house behind 'This Moment on Earth' to let us do one for the book itself. You guys want in on that?
Sure thing!
Submitted by JJ Ross on 29 April 2007 - 7:05pm.
and I KNOW MisEducation will want a piece o' that...
dimpling, but you can't see it in this light
Well, I guess
Submitted by NanceConfer on 29 April 2007 - 3:36pm.
I'm just not sensitive to whatever the difference is.
I like a well-lit room and usually have all the natural light I can get but still like a nice, bright bulb. I went for the 100 watt soft white CFL bulbs and really can't say I've noticed any difference.
But maybe that's just me. . .
Nance
If you don't notice the different, then cool (white)!
Submitted by M. Loutre on 29 April 2007 - 5:09pm.
But some of us do notice the difference, though. Plants and animals definitely do.
Different illumination sources fall into different parts of the visible-light spectrum; regular daylight usually falls into the 3200-degrees-Kelvin and 6000-degrees-Kelvin range, while standard incandescent lighting falls into the same range as other carbon-oxidation-based sources at around 3200 degrees Kelvin.
Our eyes and the brain circuits by which we process visual data have a wide range of latitude in correcting for these wide variances in color temperature. Our brains will automatically compensate so that what we know to be "white" appears to our minds' eyes as "white", and we recalibrate our mental color perceptions accordingly. As photographers, filmmakers and videographers can tell you -- looking at you, Lorraine
Common fluorescent lighting sources, being built around an illumination chemistry not found in nature, not only fall into odd parts of the Kelvin color spectrum but also seem to our minds -- if not necessarily to our eyes -- to be particularly artificial. This is because their illumination falls into what's called a 'broken spectrum' range. Some people are a lot more sensitive to this effect than others. Most people make automatic mental corrections for it.
But as anyone who's ever tried to apply makeup under fluorescent office lights that doesn't look outrageously garish when viewed under normal daylight knows, and as florists and grocers and other vendors of products whose quality is judged by perceived visual quality know, the use of accurate and/or or natural-spectrum light sources is absolutely critical to the perceived nature of the end result even though the brain attempts to automatically compensate for skewed color temperature sources.
This is a known problem with typical fluorescent light sources, which are already so ubiquitous in our offices and workplaces these days. It has perceptual effects on vision in general, it directly relates to eyestrain and glare problems in workplaces, and it has subtle but nonetheless very real connections to emotional disturbances in some people.
Plants that are exposed only to standard broken-spectrum visual sources like office fluorescent lighting tend to wither and die. So do people, albeit less emphatically since we don't process our nutrients by way of chlorophyll-based photogenesis. In our cases, the effect seems to affect us emotionally and psychologically instead of physcially. but that doesn't make it any less important.
You can but full-sized fluorescent lighting tubes that are engineered to correct for these typical color-temperature differentiation problems. Full-spectrum-balanced products such as Gro-Light tubes are one example. If you look in the lighting aisle of your local home supply stores, you'll probably see at least one line of fluorescent tubes that aare listed on their packaging as being color-balanced for kitchens, bathrooms, and so forth as well.
This advanced level of color-temperature and spectrum-compensating technology has achieved little to no penetration in the CFL incandescent-bulb-replacement market, though. I don't know if that's due at least in part to the size-reduction problems involved in getting adequate brightness ratings out of relatively small fluorescence-based sources or what.
Anyway, at the end of this long and boring light-geek digression... that's why I said that while I do use CFLs at home for energy-saving purposes, I don't like the other side effects. By training I am very aware of Kelvin-temperature color ratings in the visible light sources around me. By temperament I am very sensitive to the artificial nature of broken-spectrum light sources.
I really look forward to the day when I can get natural-spectrum light source products that will fit into old-school fixtures originally designed to take incandescent bulbs. Until then, though, all I can do is to grin & bear it -- and make sure I get outside in natural light as much as possible, to keep me from going broken-spectrum postal and/or having my leaves turn brown. Ahem.
(If you're not already completely bored to death by the previously-noted light-geekery aspect at this point, here's a fairly robust explanation of color temperature and spectrum issues as regards common sources of illumination in our daily lives: http://www.internetcampus.com/tvp028.htm )
Light
Submitted by mole333 on 29 April 2007 - 7:03pm.
Different CFL bulbs give a different light...some are much better than others. I am glad you do it, even if grudgingly! I have no problem with crumudgeons, being one myself! But you can try other bulbs and they may be better. I have even heard (misleadingly??) of natural spectrum CFL bulbs.
Lightbulb update
Submitted by NanceConfer on 30 April 2007 - 4:39pm.
Because I know you are all on the edge of your seat!
I talked to my Mom today and she has started switching over too. She has long been a recycler and taught me all my "frugal" habits but this was a recent change for her.
Hurray Mom!
Nance
Yeah mom!
Submitted by mole333 on 30 April 2007 - 7:27pm.
Well, I may not have been sitting on the edge of my seat, but I am very happy to hear it. Tell her there are some folks on the internet who are quite happy she is changing over.
For the record I THINK my mother and brother changed over some time ago...but I will check next time I visit them, which will be in June/July.
Grumble, grumble
Submitted by JJ Ross on 30 April 2007 - 6:28pm.
There goes my "old eyes" excuse I guess . . .
Give your mom an attagirl from JJ!
Another option
Submitted by mole333 on 30 April 2007 - 8:01pm.
If you want a different option, the future technology is LED. There are LED bulbs out there that may suit you better. BUT...they cost MUCH more than CFL bulbs. And yet long term you STILL save money because they last almost forever and use a miniscule amount of energy. If you are willing to pay about $35-45 for a light bulb...that lasts 60,000 hours using only about 3 watts of energy, you can buy an LED bulb. You might be able to find them cheaper, but they really are fairly new and harder to find than CFL. You really do save money long term with LEDs, but we are talking a much longer long term than with CFL bulbs. But I would love to hear your opinion if you tried one! SO far we are mired in the relatively old technology of CFL bulbs.
Actually
we are in the process of switching over and I was surprised to see how affordable the CFL bulbs were. A pack of three or four was about a dollar more than a pack of regular bulbs. Reasonable even for a curmudgeon like me.
Nance