The Truth About Energy-Saving Light Bulbs

This topic appears in various forms around the Internet, and is always presented as a list of questions and answers with a perversely commercial twist.  As if we didn’t know they were trying to get us to go out and buy more useless stuff.  Anyway, while it’s many other places as well, I’ve borrowed these quotes below from here.

I’ve purposely skipped over the points I didn’t find interesting, which is why some of the numbers are missing.

Here is my response to their response to our previously stated concerns…

1. Low-energy bulbs produce unpleasant light

Five or so years ago, many low energy bulbs did produce rather weak, cold and unnatural-looking light. But times have changed and modern eco bulbs are better than ever before.

American magazine Popular Mechanics put such claims to the test, asking people to rate the light from eight different bulbs. The result? The seven eco bulbs all scored better than the one regular bulb.

Many people continue to complain about the quality of light from these bulbs, still!  I personally find them very harsh, and at the high end do not do an adequate job of lighting up a room as a supposedly comparable regular bulb.  I think rather than continue to tell us the light is no longer unpleasant, like they’ve been saying for years now, manufacturers need to simply start making more pleasant bulbs and people will start buying them.

2. Eco bulbs flicker and take ages to turn on
Again, this is mainly a thing of the past. Most modern low-energy bulbs turn on within a second, with no flickering. But it’s true that they can take a few seconds to reach their maximum light levels, especially in a cold room.

I think it’s pretty clear, they do still sometimes flicker and they do take a long time to turn on.  Especially taking a while to come up to full brightness, I find very annoying.  Time will tell as the newer bulbs wear out, but all the previous generations have started flickering and dimming as they got old, and I can’t see any reason not to suspect the same will happen with the newer ones.

3. Low-energy light bulbs are expensive
Prices have plummeted in recent years and, thanks to subsidy schemes, high quality bulbs are available in the UK for as little as £1 each. The more obscure eco bulbs are pricier, but still excellent value if you factor in how long they last and the comparative cost of using regular bulbs.

I think this is pretty expensive!  Standard bulbs cost just a few cents.  What’s also the problem is you just don’t know what you’re paying for with the newer bulbs.  If you buy a cheap one at a market somewhere, will you be punished?  Will the light be blue?  Will it start flickering after a few hours of use or just burn out completely?  With the older bulbs, you know what you are buying and there are few risks in buying a cheap one.

For some time now the manufacturers of the newer bulbs have manipulated us into buying and rebuying bulbs that were of poor quality, and we’re supposed to believe them now?  At best the idea the new bulbs last longer is very dubious, and my experience is they are far from value for money.

In addition, traditional bulbs can be manufactured with the idea of lasting longer, but now there is a lot of pressure to make electricity-efficient bulbs.  This results in bulbs that burn out faster and probably consume more energy in total.

4. Low-energy bulbs take lots of energy to make, offsetting their environmental benefits
Energy saving bulbs take around four times more energy to make than regular incandescent bulbs do. But they last five to ten times longer, so they can actually help reduce the total energy used in light bulb manufacture and distribution. Even if this were not true, the energy used in producing an eco bulb would be outweighed by the 80 per cent energy savings it can make.

The problems with this argument are numerous.  First of all it’s pretty clear the claim of 80% energy savings with the new bulbs is little more than a lie.  It varies from bulb to bulb, but 60% is probably a lot more realistic.  You’ll notice this claim is not made much any more, and there have been threats of legal action for manufactures who use it in their marketing.

In addition, the manufacturing energy costs do not take into account that the new bulbs come from China, where the old ones were made locally in many places like Europe and the US.  These energy costs also don’t take into account recycling and disposal costs that were not necessary with the older bulbs.  Consider too that many people will be recycling the newer bulbs by taking them somewhere in their car.

7. Low-energy bulbs don’t work with dimmer switches
This was true until recently, but you can now buy fully dimmable low-energy lights (see Varilight and Osram). They’re more expensive than regular eco bulbs but they can still save you plenty of money in the long run. Also, the Philips energy-saving halogen bulbs mentioned above are fully dimmable (as are some Megaman bulbs, though you may have to change your fittings).

I think the real question is, if you want a dimmable light, why not use a regular bulb?  Why is it necessary to go out and buy a very expensive bulb of dubious quality, in order to have a dimmable lamp in your home??

8. Low-energy bulbs are bad for us and the environment as they contain mercury
It’s true that low-energy bulbs contain tiny quantities of mercury (around 100-300 times less than you’d get in a thermometer). However, this can be safely disposed of by taking old bulbs to your local dump for recycling. It is important not to throw bulbs into landfill as mercury is harmful if it enters water courses and the food chain.

The largest source of mercury in the air is the burning of fossil fuels – in coal-fired power plants, for example. So, provided they’re properly disposed of, low-energy bulbs can actually help to reduce the amount of mercury energy entering the atmosphere by cutting the demand for electricity.

The problem is not mercury in the environment, the problem is mercury in our homes!  Mercury is poisonous and no safe level has been established for human exposure.  If these newer bulbs break they spread the mercury around our homes.  If someone throws one of these bulbs on the ground or it gets buried, the mercury will leach out and remain effectively forever.  If someone grows their food on that ground, the mercury will be taken up by the plants.  It’s chemical waste, and if the ground gets contaminated, it needs to be cleaned up.

In order to deal with this waste the consumer needs to turn the bulbs in for disposal, which should not be their responsibility and involves more wasted energy.

Traditional light bulbs don’t have poisonous waste in them, and special recycling is not necessary.

What do coal-fired power plants have to do with this argument anyway??

9. Regular bulbs don’t waste energy, they just produce heat that helps warm the home
It is true that the ‘wasted’ energy of a regular bulb is given off as heat but this is only useful on cold days. Gas boilers produce heat far more efficiently than electric light bulbs. And as hot air rises, bulbs on the ceiling aren’t exactly the ideal place to produce heat for your home.

I don’t know many people who heat their homes with light bulbs, do you?

The question is not if this is a sensible thing to do, the issue is if the wasted energy from less efficient bulbs gets at least partly offset by your home heating system.  Since darkness and cold weather go together in most parts of the world that experience a winter climate, it’s a very common situation where people use light bulbs at the same time as their central heating.  Sunlight generates heat and light, and lack of sunlight generally means the need for lighting and heating.

‘Gas boilers produce heat far more efficiently than electric light bulbs’ is a very subjective statement.  In my case for example, my electricity comes from a nearby gas fired power plant that’s very efficient.  Other people may have wind generated or other ‘green’ electricity, that’s actually more environmentally friendly than a gas boiler.

Even though the light bulbs are usually on the ceiling, electricity lost from low efficiency is not lost, it’s converted to heat that heats your house together with your central heating system.  There is some energy lost because gas heating is more efficient than electricity, but for many people this could be as little as 20%, meaning very little difference in total between newer and older light bulbs.

The real issue here is that the amount of energy used to light the average home is very small compared to the energy used for airco and heating, and in the case of heating a percentage of this is offset when you use lights.  While wasted energy is important, the emphasis being put on low energy lighting is disproportionate to what lighting consumes.  The real issue is manufactures are trying to trick and force us into buying more things that are a disposal problem and we don’t need.

If you were to do a true and honest assessment of the energy difference between new and old bulbs, including all of my points here, I think you would find the newer bulbs consume more energy overall — in addition to creating a disposal problem.  In any event the difference in energy consumption is not huge.

I’m not saying it’s bad to use the new bulbs, but you have to consider your personal circumstances carefully, and they are not for everyone.

Minute Meme: Copying is not Theft

Following up on my posts from yesterday, this is a 1 minute video meant to be a response to similar short blurbs sponsored by the recording industry.  I would encourage you to read about the background of the video at it’s original source.  In particular they are not necessarily suggesting copying can’t be harmful in the end, they just feel copying can be a good thing and the true definition of copying is too important to be distorted by those who want to discourage us from doing it.

Animation, lyrics, and tune by Nina Paley. Music arranged by Nik Phelps; vocals by Connie Champagne.

questioncopyright.org

Wikileaks: Afghanistan War Diary 2004-2009

Arguably one of the most significant uses of the Internet to publish information that belongs in the public domain.  You can read more about it and access the documents on the Wikileaks site.

Recently the Swedish Pirate Party, who have two seats in the EU parliament and is their own ISP, have offered ISP services to Wikileaks should they find it useful.

For those of you who are Flattr users, you can flattr them here:


Wikileaks: Afghanistan War Diary 2004-2009

For those of you who aren’t Flattr users and are interested, contact me for an invitation code or sign up for a code on the Flattr website.

Pirate Party

Probably a lot of people reading this have heard of the Swedish Pirate Party or perhaps The Pirate Bay website where you can find things like videos, music, software and other things to download, copyrighted and otherwise.

In fact the idea of the Pirate Party has spread worldwide, and many countries have similar emerging parties.

The Pirate Party really came to peoples attention when The Pirate Bay website was raided by the Swedish police.  It was raided, not because it was in violation of Swedish or other law, it was raided on the request of the US government who threatened trade sanctions against Sweden(!) if they didn’t shut the website down.  In Sweden this is illegal.  Politicians are not allowed to request the police to do this, but they did it anyway.

In the following video, Peter Sunde, one of the founders of The Pirate Bay website tells the story of The Pirate Bay, the Swedish Pirate Party and Flattr:

In the last European elections the Swedish Pirate Party won 2 seats in the EU Parliament. Since the ISP of The Pirate Bay was ordered by a judge to disconnect the website, the Swedish Pirate Party decided to become an ISP and now hosts The Pirate Bay website in the Swedish parliament building. The Swedish constitution gives them immunity from prosecution as long as their actions are consistent with their party mandate. This is the reason The Pirate Bay website is still available on the Internet.

I am no spokesperson for the Swedish or any other Pirate Party. In fact one of the things I’ve discovered recently is there is a huge diversity of opinions within these parties. As a rule however, these parties are opposed to the injustices imposed by copyright holders on users of the Internet. These include lawsuits, threats of lawsuits, disconnection of Internet service and other actions.

I think many Pirate Party members feel like I do, that downloading anything from the Internet is a good thing. It is the nature of how the Internet works technically. It’s how information and computer tools are distributed and it’s how people communicate. This is simply an important aspect of how the Internet works, and people should use it as such.

Few people are opposed to creators of this content being paid! I think it’s a fine idea for people to be paid for their work. The idea of enforcing this payment by imposing rules on the use of the Internet is seriously flawed.

There are even some politicians who believe people who break these or other rules should have their Internet service disconnected! Can you imagine this? This is like taking away someone’s library card, because they’ve abused the information in the books.

In today’s world the Internet is far beyond a luxury. If you’re a person of any age in school, you’ll almost certainly receive a portion of your assignments on the Internet. Some companies now only bill via the Internet. It’s simply the largest and most important source of information and communication, and it’s not something you take away from someone because they’ve been bad! Already it’s a necessary part of life, and in the coming years it’s going to be even more important.

This video has some Dutch but it’s mostly in English, and features the founder of the Swedish Pirate Party talking a bit about the party principles:

While these principles apply now to the Internet, there are ramifications for Democracy as a whole. Do we want seed companies to someday be able to tell us we can’t trade seeds over the Internet?

Tom Wagner Blight Resistant Potato Trials

With the recent announcement by the British government to move forward with GM blight resistant potato trials, it’s time to say some more about the blight resistant potato trials being organized by US potato breeder Tom Wagner.  I think there are important similarities and differences between these trials, and I’d like to explain some of them.  I’ll certainly be talking about more of these things in later posts too.

TPS Seedlings

It was a rainy day yesterday as I planted out my seedlings grown from True Potato Seed (TPS) received from Tom, so the pictures probably seem a little grey.  Rebsie of Daughter of the Soil planted hers out a few days ago, and many others across Europe are planting them in their gardens too.  This past year Tom travelled across Europe, meeting people, giving away his seeds and doing a series of workshops.

These seedlings are results of crosses made by Tom in his garden, between different historical and modern potato varieties.  There are a lot of these crosses, and for the sake of convenience these new varieties don’t yet have names but rather have been assigned a number.

These numbers and the genetics behind them are discussed by Tom in the videos I linked to above.

I was a little late in planting these seedlings out, and you can see some of the new tubers are starting to form in the little plastic pots I started the plants in.  Sorry, my camera didn’t focus properly on this.

In Simple Terms — The Genetics

The UK scientists say they are trialling two genes found in wild potato relatives, shown to result in late blight resistance.  These genes have been inserted into Desiree, a common commercial potato variety.  I have yet to verify this, but I believe we have these same two genes in our potatoes.  In this sense, our trials overlap. [edit: This probably isn’t true]

The genes in Tom Wagner’s potatoes go far beyond the trial in the UK.

Before, during and after Tom’s trip to Europe he’s been searching for and collecting the genetic materials from varieties of potatoes already shown to have blight resistance.  He’s been doing this by collecting tubers and seeds from these plants, putting them in has garden in the US, and using traditional breeding methods to cross pollinate them.  As opposed to the two genes the UK scientists are working with, Tom is working with millions of genes.

One Gene is Not Enough

One of the problems in breeding late blight resistance in potatoes is it’s a quickly mutating disease, capable of overcoming the resistance in a short time.  Many varieties created in the past are no longer resistant for this reason.  In order to overcome this problem, and create a variety that’s even more resistant, it’s necessary to use combinations of genes.  This is why the scientists in the UK are working with two and Tom is working with as many as he can find.

This is often referred to as vertical resistance or gene stacking.

The Ongoing Battle

Late blight dates back to the time of the Irish Potato famine when the potato varieties grown were susceptible to the disease and all quickly destroyed by a sudden outbreak.  The problem was made worse, because the number of varieties grown was very small, so there was little chance of any of them having natural resistance.

It’s believed late blight was originally brought to Europe in an infected tuber in a potato shipment from North America.  The disease quickly spread in Europe because the climate here provides a much more favorable environment for it.  It was also an unusually serious problem because the potato had become one of the most important sources of food for Europeans.

The approach taken to control late blight until now has been with chemical fungicides.   This approach has not been without it’s problems however.

Late blight is nearly impossible to control once the plant has become infected.  There are chemicals that can do this, but are generally considered too toxic for human consumption.  This means you have to prevent the plants from becoming infected in the first place, and so you need to begin applying chemicals when you first think an infection may be possible, often weeks before an infection would actually occur.

As late blight has mutated over the years, the chemicals used to control it have necessarily become stronger and stronger and more toxic to both people and the environment.  We are now to the point where literally tons and tons of these chemicals are used every year in Europe alone.  It’s to the point where developing stronger chemicals is no longer feasible.

A recent development in late blight mutation is it’s now reproducing sexually, and different strains can now exchange DNA.  Until now all reproduction has been asexual, meaning mutations were considerably slower.  It’s all but assured future mutations of late blight will now occur much more rapidly.

Two-Gene vs. Multi-Gene Approach

The two gene approach taken by the UK scientists has a high chance of resulting in late blight resistance. The real question however, is how long this resistance will last.

The argument of course, is when the resistance of this variety is no longer adequate, they will look for more genes in wild potato relatives and create a new GM variety.  If necessary, they can use more than two genes.  This approach however looks an awful lot like the fungicides now being used.  As these scientists move from one gene to the next, work their way through all the combinations they think of, eventually they will reach the end when it no longer works.

In a case like this, the interactions between all the genes are not likely to ever be fully understood.  The UK scientists will only be working with genes or combinations of genes they can single out as being important in existing varieties, and they won’t see everything.

Tom’s multi gene approach on the other hand is much more likely to be sustainable, and is more likely to show functional resistance on farms.

By using Tom’s approach an unknown number of genes will be involved in the resistance.  By taking existing resistant varieties, using the combinations of their genes in their entirety, all genes involved in that resistance can be used, not just the ones that can be specifically identified.  In addition, by creating crosses with several different resistant varieties, all the genes from all the varieties can be used in their totality and in different combinations.

By creating a number of resistant varieties in this way, then growing them in different places and continuing the process of crossing new resistant varieties as they appear, new resistant genes will be discovered.  This is in part because there will be natural mutations in the plants themselves creating new genes, but also previously unknown ones will be found.  This ongoing process is much more likely to produce late blight resistance in the long run, and the chance of ‘running out of genes’ like what will happen eventually with the GM approach is significantly reduced.

In addition by working with a number of different varieties resistant to late blight in different ways, all at the same time, the chance of losing the entire season’s potato harvest like what happened during the Irish Potato Famine is significantly reduced.

Other Benefits of Biodiversity

There is another very important benefit to Tom’s multi gene approach.  If one picture is worth 1000 words, have a look at some of Tom’s recent potato lines (click to enlarge):

Which would you rather eat, one of these or a GM Desiree potato?

One of the things Tom likes doing is working with older varieties that were favorites among our ancestors.  For example, Tom has Irish roots and likes to work with the Lumper potato which was the most widely grown at the time of the Irish Potato Famine.  In fact he’s created a number of blight resistant varieties using the Lumper as a basis.

By using Tom’s traditional breeding methods, it’s possible to recover traits in popular old varieties, and bring them back into new ones.

Some Other Important Differences

How about we talk security fences here?  Here’s a picture of my security fence:

It’s a 4 ft hedge behind a shallow canal.

Unlike the £20.000 8 ft security fence and 24 hour security guard the scientists in the UK have, I only have the good graces of the other allotmenteers in my complex.  Someone is usually around in the day, but otherwise my plot is unattended.

Another difference is funding.  The costs of everyone participating in Tom’s trials are paid out of pocket.  Tom in particular has devoted his whole life to his work, has never been paid royalties for his varieties, and uses huge amounts of his family’s money to pay his costs.  If we had the money invested in the UK security fence alone, we could dramatically expand our trials not to mention offset some of our expenses.

A Specific Response to the UK Scientists

In the media recently were some statements made by people involved in the UK trials, and I wanted to respond to one of them.

From the BBC:

Professor Jones said that the trial was well within the biosecurity parameters required in order for permission to be granted.

“The rules are that the field trial has to be at least 20 metres from adjacent conventional potato fields,” he said.

“Very hypothetically, if a few pollen grains make it from our GM potatoes to some cultivated potatoes, given that we do not eat the fruit but the tubers, there is absolutely no way that the DNA we use can enter the human food chain.”

“There are also no wild relatives of potato in Europe that it could cross (breed) with.”

I think the argument could be made that contamination from the field trial is unlikely, but the idea of 20 metres being adequate isolation is totally absurd.  First the variety used in this trial, Desiree, produces large amounts of pollen and is a very poor choice in terms of reducing contamination.  Insects can carry pollen from potatoes large distances, and if these potatoes are ever grown commercially the contamination would be widespread.  If the scientists were concerned about spreading contamination, why not use a variety that doesn’t produce pollen?

A male sterile variety, for example British Queen, could easily pick up a single grain of pollen from this GM variety, turning it into a seed ball that could get lost in the field and produce weeds for years to come.

Potato tubers themselves are always left behind in farmers fields, which then turn into weeds.  Potatoes by their nature are a weedy plant.  There may not be potato relatives growing wild in Europe, but there are plenty of possibilities for contamination.

The spreading of this sort of contamination threatens the breeding work I’ve laid out here, and puts the entire future of organic potatoes in jeopardy.