How many nuclear physicists to change a light bulb?
In a post about Risk, Gia says that standing on a chair to change a lightbulb is far riskier than a nuclear power plant.
So then, I laugh in ze face of danger — ha ha ha! — and cast a withering glance in ze direction of general direction of timidity. It´s time for some extreme lightbulb changing.
I would not be putting my life on the line here, though, unless something serious was at stake: money.
The Money Shot, posted on this site on 7 June, touched on questions about the economics of nuclear power, and specifically the economics of nuclear new build as distinct from plants whose capital cost has already been paid down. (It elicited some interesting comments, for which thanks! This discussion clearly has a way to go.)
At the end of the post I suggested an experiment one might practically do during the life of this blog: find out what rates of return might one get from a range of investments in energy services, and how they compare.
A mundane but promising option looks to me to be energy efficient lightbulbs — although in the light of revelations about the risks involved it is mundane no more: changing these glowing globes has a new glamour in my eyes, a bit like base jumping.
If not exactly standing on the shoulders of giants, I do at least seek to benefit from the experience of persons who may on balance be marginally saner than me. So, for example, Clive Bates, head of environmental policy at the Environment Agency, writes:
What investment offers a risk-free 400 per cent annual return? It’s not a fashionable hedge fund or an exotic credit derivative. It’s a light bulb. Replacing one ordinary, incandescent light bulb…for a low-energy, compact fluorescent one costs a few quid up front but it will save electricity worth about £50 over its lifetime. It is probably the best-performing investment in the world. While it is making money, the bulb also saves carbon emissions, typically by three-quarters. Perhaps if they had a £50 note pinned to the box, low-energy light bulbs would be flying off the shelves (article continues here).
I have bought two kinds of bulbs as part of a test for this proposition and others. Both bulbs are said to substitute for the 50 Watt GU10 halogen bulbs in the house our family recently moved into. The Luminex Compact Reflector consumes 7W. The Excled LED spot lamp consumes 1.3 W. Both seem to overcome at least one of the problems sometimes associated with efficient bulbs, which Oliver Letwin mentions here: that they do not always fit into existing sockets. Lucky readers may be treated to photos of these cool little numbers soon.
The experiment with lightbulbs may look trivial in the scheme of things. Quite a few people — including, it would appear, both Oliver Letwin and Dick Cheney — put energy conservation in the realm of mere personal virtues. Another argument, advanced by the likes of Roger Levett here and here and “Ban the [incandescent] Bulb” campaigner Matt Prescott here, says that it is actually through more aggressive programmes of demand management that the greatest gains can be achieved — for the individual, environment, society and indeed the state (which, as David Cameron has cleverly said, is not the same thing).
5 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
June 14th, 2006 @ 11:36 am
Caspar,
I found something very interesting the other related to lightbulbs and coal-fuelled plants. It’s on How Stuff Works. Apparently, to power a lightbulb for a year it takes 714lbs (325kg) of coal and produces: 5lbs of Sulphur Dioxide, 5.1lbs of Nitrogen Oxides and 1852lbs of Carbon Dioxide.
The article ends with:
“It also produces smaller amounts of just about every element on the periodic table, including the radioactive ones. In fact, a coal-burning power plant emits more radiation than a (properly functioning) nuclear power plant!”
June 15th, 2006 @ 9:57 am
Thanks, Gia
That is indeed interesting. An efficient bulb, consuming say 10W to produce similar apparent light to a conventional incandescent bulb rated at 100W, would — other things being equal — probably be responsible for about a tenth as much pollution, whether powered by coal, nuclear or some other form of generation.
Another way to save energy and therefore harmful emissions is of course to turn off lights and other appliances when not using them. Most of us are probably a bit guilty in this regard, but the scale of the phenomenon may sometimes underestimated. If I read reports of findings by The Carbon Trust correctly, companies in the UK are burning up about 15% more than they need to through simple lack of care (e.g. leaving lights and computers on overnight or when otherwise not in use). This, says the Trust, will cost them an extra 570 million pounds this summer.
This is not all very exciting stuff. “Efficiency is about as sexy as washing old socks” says one veteran environment correspondent. But it is important.
June 15th, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
I believe I read somewhere that California has passed/is considering a law to limit the amount of standby power appliances are allowed to draw. For example, the power it takes to run the clock on a microwave oven, operating 24/7, can be higher than the power consumed during the few minutes of actual use each day. Similarly, DVD players, televisions, computers and other appliances use a trickle of energy when not in use that can add up.
I don’t think anyone is opposed to energy efficiency per se. However, you are still left with the question of where the remaining power demand will come from.
June 15th, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
Regarding Lenny´s comment, can anyone post a link to some informative material on the California law?
I have heard in the past that some appliances on standby consume more than a trickle — in some cases 20% or more of the power they use while in operation.
An issue here is who captures the benefits of designing the machines so that the standby function consumes less power, or pays the penalty if they don´t? Perhaps the California law will help moves things forward in that regard.
It´s been announced that homes in England and Wales are to get an energy efficiency rating (see here ). It´s a small but promising step that comes after a lot of effort by some focussed people.
Lenny is right of course that there will always be a demand for electricity or other forms of energy. In the UK case, the key questions include how much and at what price?
Roger Levett, in the first of the two articles I cited in the post above asserts:
June 15th, 2006 @ 6:19 pm
I found several links such as here
however, I won’t claim to have the latest
information and was not able to find the article I had read earlier that provided a nice comparison of the standby power usage of several types of
appliances. Also, President Bush
apparently had signed an executive order
earlier that accomplished the same thing for government procurements.
Although I don’t object in principle to changes in building codes or urban planning methods Roger Levett’s articles propose, I question the speed and impact of the results he seems to believe would result from them. Most people will continue to live in older homes in older communities for decades or generations to come.