On The Insider: Britney's Bikini-Clad Top 10
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

November 4th, 2008

Needed: a truly green source of light (besides the sun). Any bright ideas?

Posted by Harry Fuller @ 11:43 am

Categories: Blogroll, air pollution, building, conservation, energy, engineering, environmental health, federal government, fossil fuel, green tech, law & politics, recycling, research, state government

Tags: Human, Fossil Fuel, Fossil Fuel Price, MERCURY, Harry Fuller

Fossil fuel prices are dropping so all the folks who rushed into the alternative energy branch of greentech are going to be slogging up a steep and slippery slope for some time. But can’t somebody come up with a good idea for artificial lighting that is both more efficient than incandescent, and greener than compact flourescent? Perhaps a killer app for LED [definition here]? There’s not any shortage of customers for good electric lighting that is both clean AND economical.

There is a steady increase in the use of compact flourescent bulbs across the U.S. Some use is being pushed by local or state regulations and building codes. Some is simply because the bulbs are more energy efficient. Here’s the federal government site promoting the use of CFLs, 70% less energy for Energy Star rated bulbs, it says.
Australia was the first nation ban incandescent bulbs which are now being discouraged in Wal-Mart stores, and countries from Japan to Ireland.

But there are problems, and expenses attached beyond simply buying the bulbs. A recent California Lighting Task Force Report looked at the issue of CFL disposal (Compact Flourescent Lighting). They found a cost of $20-million over three years to get a disposal and recycling program going. The low-end estimates are that it would cost 30-50 cents per bulb for recycling. Bulb disposal volume in Califonria alone is expected to soon reach tens of millions annually. With CFLs, it’s the mercury problem.

THERE IS NO CFL WITHOUT MERCURY INSIDE.

Here’s what the Task Force report says about CFL bulbs and their mercury content. “Fluorescent lighting, the most widely available type of energy-efficient lighting, requires a small amount of
mercury in order to function. Mercury is a natural element that has many useful properties, but is also a powerful neurotoxin that causes a variety of adverse health effects.
“Once it is released (when a fluorescent bulb breaks), mercury is very mobile in the environment. It can enterthe atmosphere and be transported great distances. Mercury in the atmosphere is eventually deposited on land or in water bodies, where certain microorganisms can convert it to methylmercury, a highly toxic form that accumulates in the fatty tissue of fish (and also in humans who eat these fish). Fish and shellfish consumptionis the main source of methylmercury exposure to humans.”

Now California has a long and ugly history with mercury contamination. Back during the placer mining days mercury was used to separate the gold flakes from the ordinary flakes. So it was soon in the state’s rivers, estuaries, coastal water, shellfish, fish and humans.

While pushing the use of CFLs, the federal government does own up to the mercury issue. They present stats showing that CFLs actually reduce overall mercury in the air and water because the number 1 source of mercury pollution in America are coal-burning electrical plants. Using efficient CFLs reduces need for electricity, that reduces mercury produced by electrical generation, etc. etc.

Have you noted that many CFLs are being made now in China? Worldwatch says they make about 85% of the global CFL supply in China. No surprise. And you don’t even want to begin to imagine how they’re dealing with mercury disposal or leaks there.

So, can’t some bright VC fund a brilliant researcher who then invent a better LED, one that could light a room, or an entire auditorium, perhaps give it a soft glow not a harsh white spotlight?

THERE COULD BE A NEW LIGHT AT THE END OF THE OLD LIGHT

led.jpg
Courtesy: lightoftomorrow.com

Can LEDs be the right answer? Worldwatch is cautiously optimistic, saying in a few years LEDs could be cheaper to buy and operate than CFLs are now. Here’s some of their conclusion: ” LEDs also have several drawbacks, such as high cost (up to $60 per bulb), a harsh white light that con­sumers find unappealing, and a more focused light stream that is not well suited for ambient lighting. These problems have prevented LEDs from catching on with consumers. But as they are improved through new research and development, LEDs could become the next genera­tion of energy-efficient lighting.”

Here’s one website already selling a wide variety of home and office application LEDs.

Harry FullerA newsman since 1969, Harry Fuller has worked for CBS, ABC, CNBC Europe, CNET and was founding news director at TechTV. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.

Email Harry Fuller

Subscribe to GreenTech Pastures via Email alerts or RSS.

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 21 Talkback(s)
Few CFL's last anyway.
The CFL's I tried tried from both major hardware chains did not last more than a few months, and took forever to warm-up. What a rip! They in no-way paid for themselves.

I finally some found t... (Read the rest)
Posted by: DFWdad Posted on: 11/21/08 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence NOW by Jeff Wilson  FreeEnergy | 11/04/08
RE: Needed: a truly green source of light (besides the sun). Any bright ideas?  mr1972 | 11/04/08
CFL, LED, and Home Automation (Dimmers)  Grayson Peddie | 11/04/08
RE: Needed: a truly green source of light (besides the sun). Any bright ideas?  ed.ahlsen-girard@... | 11/05/08
color, colour  shadfurman | 11/06/08
Actually, it's nitpick.  Letophoro | 11/06/08
RE: Needed: a truly green source of light (besides the sun). Any bright ideas?  mark.ford@... | 11/05/08
lifetime cost of components  ticthak@... | 11/05/08
More to it  Ross44 | 11/05/08
Disposal  seanferd | 11/05/08
um...  shadfurman | 11/06/08
I got an A+ on that in college.  TripleII | 11/05/08
RE: Needed: a truly green source of light (besides the sun). Any bright ideas?  GRLCowan | 11/05/08
barf is also green  dmennie | 11/05/08
yup  shadfurman | 11/06/08
So your saying...  mr1972 | 11/06/08
The greenest is nuclear.  TripleII | 11/05/08
hmmm....  shadfurman | 11/06/08
That Depends  mr1972 | 11/06/08
RE: Needed: a truly green source of light (besides the sun). Any bright ideas?  shadfurman | 11/06/08
Few CFL's last anyway.  DFWdad | 11/21/08

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
Click Here

Recent Entries

Premier Vendor Content Whitepapers, webcasts & resources from our Power Center Sponsors

Archives

ZDNet Blogs

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads