Si Se Puede: Every Chilean Can (and Does) Screw in a Compact Fluorescent Light Bulb
There is no cleaner, cheaper or more secure energy than the energy we don't use. And much has been written about the potential savings from replacing traditional incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lights (CFL). The EU has eliminated the sale of incandescent bulbs in many of its member countries. Yet here in the US, their rate of market penetration, while improving, remains slow. Why? Price seems to be the biggest obstacle, as CFLs cost 3-5 times more than a comparable incandescent bulb, although they are far more energy efficient and last over ten times as long. Consumers complain about the quality and color of the light, and remain skeptical about the energy savings and green benefits of the product.
Meanwhile, in Chile, a new governmental energy efficiency program focused upon increasing the use of compact fluorescents has reduced residential electricity consumption in Chile by more than 20%. That is not a typo-twenty percent. How did they do it-simple, they gave the bulbs away!! Consumers in lower income brackets received a free CFL for every incandescent bulb they turned in to their local utility, while those in higher brackets were able to purchase CFLs at cost.
Every utility executive I spoke with pointed to the new CFL program as the sole or primary driver of this extraordinary savings. Economic growth in Chile in 2008 was a relatively robust 3.4 percent, so clearly the reduction in electricity use was not due to an economic slowdown or recession.
Thanks to this program, there are now over 16 million CFLs in use in Chile, or approximately one per inhabitant. Assuming a replaced 60 watt incandescent bulb replaced by an equivalent CFL and used six hours per day, that's an annual energy savings of 1.6 billion kilowatt hours per year-or enough to shut down (or not construct new) a 300 MW baseload coal facility. And while the bulbs cost around $20 million, the new plant would cost about $600 million.
Imagine a similar program in the US, population 300 million, each replacing one incandescent bulb with a CFL. We would save 30 billion kilowatt hours per year, or about 5000 MW of dirty baseload capacity. That's almost $10 billion in new plants that wouldn't need to be built and emissions avoided. And given that US uses far more light bulbs per person that does Chile, a penetration rate of 2, 3 or 5 bulbs per person should be easily achievable. And many of us leave our lights on for more than six hours per day, so the US savings could be $50 billion or more in foregone plants, not to mention the emissions from their operation. That's enough electricity to serve the residential needs of around 12 million households, or around 30 million people.
The cleanest, greenest, cheapest and most secure energy is the energy we don't use. The empirical evidence from Chile is overwhelming and proves the savings. We can and must implement a program to put CFLs in every household -- yes we can!
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
See Larry Coben's Profile
Thanks for all of your comments. A brief note on mercury. Yes there is an issue with mercury in disposing of these bulbs. Simply put, many landfills and other modes of disposal are at times not adequate to deal with mercury, as well as with metals (ever been told you shouldnt put your batteries in your regular garbage), mining waste and various other materials. These problems are greatest in the poorest countries, though exist in the United States, Europe, Japan etc. We need a comprehensive waste disposal solution, something else I will write about at another time. But the enormous savings from CFL's TODAY more than offset these issues, which in the case of CFL's will only occur in ten years when they burn out and require disposal.
I couldn't agree more...there is nothing greener than the energy you don't use. However, I do have to question the new bulbs. They contain mercury. Consequently, if they are distributed -- particularly in poor Latin America -- without a sure recycling/awareness campaing..and I mean it better be effective; in a decade from now we will end up with unbelievable mercury contamination. I am not sure that governments and multilateral institutions, etc...have really thought this through. Sometimes the road to hell is full of good intentions.
How long will it take you "greenies" to sue CFL manufactures out of business for the amount of mercury CFL's contain.
For clean up info on CFL breakage please read:
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/
http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeowner/cflreport.htm
Think LED's they use a fraction of the energy as a CFL, last considerably longer and contain no mercury.
People complaining about the light quality of these bulbs are the problem. Please understand that reducing energy use helps us save the planet, save the economy, save our health and help us geopolitically. MAKE THE SACRIFICE DAMMIT!
We have already replaced most of our bulbs with CFLs as the old incandescents have expired beginning years ago now. Will be looking to do the same thing for the CFLs with LEDs as they become more cost effective, as they are practical, and as the current crop of CFLs expire in their turn.
As an added bonus - I don't think I have had to replace a single CFL bulb yet. Yes they are more expensive, but with their added lifetime use AND lower cost to operate it is effective to replace them at several levels.
Baby steps,... but even baby steps add up.
America, if you don't see the light, you will be left in the dark ages.
You can keep the fluorescent bulbs. The corkscrew shape is ugly and the bulb shaped ones still have that big base assembly. I'll stock up on several years worth of incandescent bulbs if these are mandated. Use them if you like them but there are other ways to conserve electricity.
CFL can be just as good as incandescent and save you a ton of money. a good CFL should start instantly, last years and give a pleasant non flickering light.
Take it back if it it doesn't.
Leds are coming on strong and are even more efficient.
The big problem I have seen with LEDs is the use of a cheap half wave rectifiers instead of a full wave rectifier and a small cap to smooth the light output.
For a moderately young country the US is quite mired in the past and resistant to change.( i.e. Denial of the need for action to slow climate change, the metric system, traffic circles) It will need legislation to get people here to switch to CFL.
Fine by me..of course the Republicans and Libertarians will scream about "personal freedom", to which we can reply that it is not a matter of personal freedom. Not using CFLs affects more than just the people who don't use them. And of course, if we REALLY want to shut the conservatives up, pose it as a matter of national security.
Oh yeah, and let's get the LEDs going...more efficient AND less toxic? LEDs FTW!
One more thing...
To get rid of them we are directed to use hazardous waste pickups...
Trouble is these are few and far between.
And light bulbs do break you know...moreso as you get older.
After getting a note yesterday from NRDC and how compact flourescents should be dealt with I came to the following conclusion:
My household will discontinue buying them. If they wear out I will replace them with a standard bulb.
I can't be bothered by wasting my time hoping that they don't break.
They cost to darn much as it is....
And then there is the real possibility of Mercury leakage.
As a consumer, I feel that it is both my right and obligation say that I will buy a
product when it's safe!
I'm also waiting for LED technology that's even more efficient!
My experience as well - I've had to replace multiple of these "green" but highly toxic bulbs within less than a year.
I agree, my CFL's have about a 50% failure within months.
LEDS are the way to go.
Caveat emptor: some cf bulbs have a really harsh white glare while others a more pleasing warm color(do a little reading about wavelegth and it is easy to figure out what you want). I have replaced 90% of my incandescents with cf's and some ceased functioning within 6 months, notably the store-branded ones I had purchased from Safeway supermarkets here in California. I've been most pleased with the Phillips bulbs that I have. My $.02 anyway.
While definitely not one of my favorites, they are the most economically, technologically and environmentally progressive nation of Western hemisphere.
I got Chinese florescent bulbs at a Canadian dollar store for a buck a piece. one dollar each! When I balanced my angst for buying offshore against the environmental benefits I was left smiling and my pockets are still jingling.
The outrageous price that American brands illicit must be due to the shipping costs from the very same China
America. You're being screwed, blewed and tattooed.
Duh
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
