Editorial Comment

	Vol. 225 No. 4
PERRY A. FISCHER, EDITOR

A bright idea? About 20 years ago, I became aware of high-efficiency lighting devices. We were still in the shadow of the Great Oil Embargo and the resulting glory days of oil prices and drilling. I was hearing about the substantial impact that these devices would have on energy use and, more important, how it would save me money and effort. At that time, compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) cost about $28 for a 75-watt light bulb for residential use. It was supposed to save me $15 over the life of the device, which was eight times that of a common incandescent bulb. The savings came from decreased electricity use, but the trade-off was the increased up-front cost. 

However, those savings shrank considerably if I pretended to amortize the extra cost of the bulb and weigh that against an investment in a CD at prevailing interest rates. Undaunted, I bought one bulb, only to return it because it would not fit in any fixture in my house. 

I bought my next CFL in 2001. By then, the 75-watt bulb was down to $11 and looked a lot shorter. The advertised savings were up to $35. Unfortunately, it still would not fit any lamp in our house. However, it did fit into the stairway globe. It took about four seconds to come on and reach full brightness. My wife hated it. 

Last week, I was buying some stuff at Home Depot. If you're not familiar, it's a retail store that sells light bulbs, lawnmowers and lumber. For absolutely no reason, the clerk said to me, “Have you seen our new light bulbs?” After explaining that they were CFLs, I said, “No thanks.” But the lad was persistent, and we walked over to the lighting isle, where I was shown these little CFLs in the shape of swirls, with a sticker that said, “Instant on...lasts 7 years...saves $43 per bulb...900 lumens.” This was about a 60-watt bulb that used only 14 watts. 

Incredibly, they were just $2.50 per bulb. Given their long life, this nearly wiped out the price difference compared to regular incandescents, so the savings were purely energy related, immediate and meaningful. The clerk said that he didn't believe the package, but he changed his entire house to the new bulbs anyway, and they significantly lowered his electric bill. I bought an assortment for the whole house. My wife just rolled her eyes. 

Arriving home, I began replacing light bulbs. In every way, they worked as advertised. My wife has even accepted them: I've redeemed myself. I'm bringing this to your attention because this quiet lighting – or at least pricing – revolution caught me by surprise, and so, maybe you too. 

Government surveys from 1993 showed that the public's main objection to CFLs was their high price – to heck with long-term savings. Twenty years ago, various pundits said that this was one of those rare technologies that was certain to get cheap from mass production, if only mass demand would kick in. It was the old chicken and egg syndrome. Energy pundits wanted government to help with incentives and public service announcements (PSAs). This has sort of been happening, but in a scattered, diffuse way. 

There is an Energy Star Program that to the average citizen is a logo that means energy efficiency. There are also various state, local and utility-company programs scattered throughout the US, some of which kick in money to encourage the purchase of these bulbs. The US EIA did a study on the effect of the entire nation changing to these lights, but that study is now 10 years old. 

Outside the US, there is a similar situation. The UK, funded by the EU, published the DELight study on high-efficiency lighting in 1998. It listed the problems, benefits and lack of focused effort of efficient lighting efforts in Europe. There are also programs – many of which provide money and PSA blitzes  – scattered throughout Europe, such as those in Denmark, Sweden, Poland and many other countries. Even the IMF and other international organizations have fostered programs and money. So, in a motley manner, there have been incentives and programs and a resulting considerable increase in CFL production over the last two decades, apparently, with the predictable effect on prices. 

The overall penetration of CFLs into the lighting industry remains small, but if my experience is any indication, that may be changing. So it seems appropriate to ask what the effect this could have on our industry. This needs to be prefaced with three points. First, lighting efficiency is part of the overall increase in energy intensity (how efficiently energy is used in terms of gross domestic product). Energy intensity has improved by more than a third over the last 30 years in the US. Second, the rate of implementation, or new technology uptake, profoundly impacts calculations of energy savings. And third, although I tried to use government figures whenever possible, these are quite dated, and the calculations themselves are slippery, especially in light of the above two observations. Nevertheless, with those caveats in mind, here's my best guess. 

If the US, through some massive effort, were to change out all incandescents with CFLs within three years, the nation would use at least 5% less natural gas for electricity generation (if gas were to take the entire hit). Add to this another 1 – 2% net savings in air conditioning, since CFLs put out much less heat. This does not include other lighting efficiency efforts, especially in the commercial and industrial sectors. Wait. After further reflection, I now realize this lighting efficiency thing has a dark side. 

This would mean over a trillion cubic feet less in annual gas demand, or one-third of the gas the US now imports from Canada. Since 85% of US drilling is gas directed, imagine the effect on the US gas industry, not to mention Canada. Worse yet, there are even more efficient CFLs, LEDs and other lighting devices now entering, or about to enter, the market. 

So, if you work in the gas industry, maybe it's better to pay, say $100, more a year in electricity costs than to undermine your own industry. Think of it as a voluntary employment tax. Let's take 20 years to implement these new technologies. Thirty would be better. What's the hurry? This whole increase in energy intensity might just be our undoing, especially if it's accelerated. 

So, for my part, I'm throwing away the CFLs and going back to good, old fashioned incandescent bulbs. Besides, I genuinely like Canadians. It would help to vote against any politician who harbors these machinations of efficiency, and forget about what you just read. Better still, burn this page.