The Great Fluorescent Migration

Today's Wall Street Journal has an editorial [via NetworkWorld] making a case against prohibition of incandescent light bulbs.

But as usual, the real answer isn't at the extremes. Sure, incandescents use a lot more energy, but are we really ready for a complete switch?

I generally dislike incandescents. They're cheap, but they're hot, they don't last long, and they use a lot of power. I switched over to compact fluorescents in as much of my house as I could and saw a dramatic drop in energy consumption. They are a little quirky, like when they don't turn on immediately, take time to get to full brightness, or run dimmer in the cold. But those are minor compared to the energy and environmental savings.

But some problems remain unresolved. The variety of affordable compact fluorescents is very limited. They are readily available in configurations for standard bulb sockets, R30 floodlights, and a couple others. But they are still nonexistent, scarce, or very expensive for other applications (dimmer switches, small bulbs and lower light levels, halogen fittings, etc.)

There are also the environmental considerations. There is an argument to be made that the coal plants that produce the higher electrical levels needed for incandescents release more mercury into environment than a broken compact fluorescent bulb. But this isn't quite apples to apples as the dispersal pattern for broken bulbs is much more localized.

What's really needed is not a ban, but proper incentives. Incentives for innovation and manufacturing to bring down costs and expand offerings of fluorescents (and other lighting technologies like LED). We need incentives for consumers. Maybe even some kind of disincentives for overconsumption of electricity. We need consumer education about mercury handling. And, we need pervasive local recycling of fluorescent bulbs.

UPDATE [13 Apr 2008]: Are Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs Dangerous?

[photo credit: Wikimedia Commons]