Paul Murray's weblog, with news you may have missed and my $0.02 worth on a number of topics.

"You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it."
- Art Buchwald

I bet you don't have a friend who's an acupuncturist

E-mail me: pmurray [at] despammed.com

The scare story about CFLs. For reasons even I don't entirely understand, I seem to write a lot (1, 2, 3) about compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). I think it's the many benefits that can result from such a simple act as changing light bulbs. It's one thing to try and persuade people that they should somehow sacrifice to reduce energy consumption -- good luck telling Americans that -- but CFLs end up saving users money, too. Everybody wins, pretty much.

Probably the biggest qualification behind that "pretty much" is the issue of CFL disposal. CFLs contain mercury. Throw one into a landfill and it's not a big deal, but when everyone starts using them and throwing them away, it becomes a serious problem.

Some people argue that the mercury is such a serious problem that rushing to CFLs is a big mistake. Earlier this week, Slate's Brendan I. Koerner looked at the CFL mercury issue and punched a hole in that argument with an interesting point:

The irony of CFLs is that they actually reduce overall mercury emissions in the long run. Despite recent improvements in the industry's technology, the burning of coal to produce electricity emits roughly 0.023 milligrams of mercury per kilowatt-hour. Over a year, then, using a 26-watt CFL in the average American home (where half of the electricity comes from coal) will result in the emission of 0.66 milligrams of mercury. For 100-watt incandescent bulbs, which produce the identical amount of light, the figure is 2.52 milligrams.

The math is less compelling in areas where significant amounts of power come from sources other than coal (hydroelectric, nuclear, etc.). And yes, we need to make it much easier to recycle CFLs. But avoiding their use due to mercury concerns doesn't make sense.

Labels: CFLs, environment, Light bulbs

posted by Paul Murray at 8:14 PM | permanent link |

Fluorescent light bulbs and the "wife test." I've noted here previously (1, 2) the benefits of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs): they dramatically lower energy consumption, helping to reduce greenhouses gases and eventually more than paying for their higher initial cost. So why aren't they catching on more?

The current market share of CFL bulbs in the United States is about 6 percent, up from less than 1 percent before 2001. But that compares dismally with CFL adoption rates in other wealthy countries such as Japan (80 percent), Germany (50 percent) and the United Kingdom (20 percent). Australia has announced a phaseout of incandescent bulbs by 2009, and the Canadian province of Ontario decided last week to ban them by 2012.

The relatively glacial adoption rate of CFLs in most of the United States suggests continued stiff resistance on the home front, despite dramatically lower prices for the bulbs and impressive improvements in their quality.

"There is still a big hurdle in convincing Americans that lighting-purchase decisions make a big difference in individual electricity bills and collectively for the environment," said Wendy Reed, director of the federal government's Energy Star campaign, which labels products that save energy and has been working with retailers to market CFL bulbs.

"I have heard time and again that a husband goes out and puts the bulb into the house, thinking he is doing a good thing," Reed said. "Then, the CFL bulb is changed back out by the women. It seems that women are much more concerned with how things look. We are the nesters." ...

"My gut feeling is that the last remaining factor that we have not cracked in selling these bulbs is the 'wife test,' " said My Ton, a senior manager at Ecos Consulting, a company in Portland, Ore., that does market research on energy efficiency.

After a decade as a researcher in residential lighting, Ton said he has concluded that a major part of the CFL problem in penetrating the American home "is a lack of communication between the sexes."

"The guy typically brings a CFL home and just screws it into a lamp in the bedroom, without discussing it with his wife," Ton said. "She walks in, turns on the light and boom -- there is trouble. That is where the negative impressions begin, especially when the guy puts it into the bedroom or the bathroom, the two most sacred areas of the home."

Ton advises husbands and wives "to talk about it before the light bulb is screwed in."

Labels: environment, Light bulbs, men and women, money

posted by Paul Murray at 12:52 PM | permanent link |