"The lighting sector is on the edge of a spectacular revolution, a shift from the century-old, inefficient incandescent light bulb to far more efficient technologies," says Lester R. Brown, President of the Earth Policy Institute, in a recent release, "How Many Energy-Efficient Light Bulbs Does It Take to Close 705 Coal Plants?" "Perhaps the quickest, most profitable way to reduce electricity use worldwide—thus cutting carbon emissions—is simply to change light bulbs."

The first advance in this field came with compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). Replacing old-fashioned inefficient incandescent bulbs that are still widely used today with new CFLs can reduce the electricity used for lighting by three fourths. Over its lifetime, each standard (13 watt) CFL will reduce electricity bills by roughly $30. And though a CFL may cost twice as much as an incandescent, it lasts 10 times as long. Each one reduces energy use compared with an incandescent by the equivalent of 200 pounds of coal over its lifetime. For perspective, the energy saved by replacing a 100-watt incandescent bulb with an equivalent CFL over its lifetime is sufficient to drive a Toyota Prius hybrid car from New York to San Francisco.

The world may be moving toward a political tipping point to replace inefficient light bulbs across the board. In February 2007, Australia announced it would phase out the sale of incandescents by 2010, replacing them with CFLs. Canada soon followed with a 2012 phaseout goal. In early 2009, the European Union (EU) approved a phaseout of incandescent bulbs, one that will save the average EU consumer 25–50 euros each year.

Brazil, hit by a nationwide electricity shortage in 2000-02, responded with an ambitious program to replace incandescents with CFLs. As a result, an estimated half of the light sockets there now contain these efficient bulbs. In 2007, China—working with the Global Environment Facility—announced a plan to replace all its incandescents with more-efficient lighting within a decade.

CFLs contain a small amount of mercury (about one fifth the quantity in a watch battery), but they can be safely recycled at the end of their useful lives. Burning the coal needed to power one incandescent light bulb releases much more mercury into the atmosphere—and eventually the water and food supply—than the amount contained in a CFL.

For office buildings, commercial outlets, and factories, where linear (tubular) fluorescents are widely used, the key to cutting electricity use is shifting to the most advanced models, which are even more efficient than CFLs. The potential savings are large; since linear fluorescents are long-lasting, many of those now in use rely on an earlier, less energy-efficient technology.

The second major advance in lighting technology is the light-emitting diode (LED), which uses up to 85 percent less electricity than an incandescent bulb. Although LEDs are the ultimate in lighting efficiency, they are still too costly for most uses. They are rapidly taking over several niche markets, however, such as traffic lights, where they now have 52 percent of the U.S. market, and exit signs in buildings, where they hold 88 percent of U.S. sales. New York City has replaced traditional bulbs with LEDs in many of its traffic lights, cutting its annual bill for maintenance and electricity by $6 million. In early 2009, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said the city would replace its 140,000 street lights with LEDs, saving taxpayers $48 million over the next seven years. The resulting reduction in carbon emissions would be like taking 7,000 cars off the road.

LEDs offer another strong economic advantage. While CFLs last 10 times as long as incandescents, LEDs last 50 times as long. Indeed, a typical LED installed at the time of a child’s birth will still be working when the youngster graduates from college. The savings in commercial situations from both lower electricity costs and the virtual elimination of replacement maintenance often more than offsets the higher initial cost.

In a world facing almost daily new evidence of climate change and its consequences, a quick and decisive victory is needed in the battle to cut carbon emissions and stabilize climate. A rapid shift to the most energy-efficient lighting technologies would provide just such a victory—generating momentum for even greater advances in climate stabilization.   
For full report visit www.earthpolicy.org/index.php?/book_bytes/2010/pb4ch04_ss2.

Contact Info: Media & Permissions to Reprint Contact:
Reah Janise Kauffman
Tel: (202) 496-9290 x 12
E-mail: rjk (at) earthpolicy.org
Research Contact:
Janet Larsen
Tel: (202) 496-9290 x 14
E-mail: jlarsen (at) earthpolicy.org
Earth Policy Institute
1350 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 403
Washington, DC  20036
Web: www.earthpolicy.org

Website : Earth Policy Institute