The New and Improved Incandescent: a case study of the way government mandates can spur innovation

It's an easy position, being anti-government, but on occasion an issue arises where only the federal government has the power to step in and bring about the changes we need. Energy efficiency, energy independence, and climate change are all perfect examples of how, absent government mandates, the free market fails to get it done and has failed to get it done time after time. Now, occasionally the government does back the wrong horse, corn ethanol is a perfect example of such an instance, but the case of the incandescent light bulb is indeed a case study of how the government can enact policy that takes a product that should have been obsolete half a century ago, and replaces it with a new technology or new and improved version. When it was announced back in 2007 that the incandescent light bulb, at least in its current form and efficiency, would be phased out by the year 2012, Conservative radio hosts across the country and in Pittsburgh (local right wingers Quinn and Rose) freaked out about the news. But have no fear right wingers and lovers of incandescent light bulbs. Because of the mandate, manufacturers have been rushing to develop new technologies that have already proven to make the old incandescent bulbs 30% to 50% more energy efficient. The impact of having the majority of our residential lighting, be it incandescents, CFLs, or LEDs, at 30%, 50%, and even 100% greater efficiency, is huge in the grand scheme of things. Now that, my friends, is change and government that we can believe in.

Local Conservative Talk Radio hosts go off on the Energy Bill's "eliminiation" of incandescent light bulbs

I couldn't believe my ears last week, when I, for a change, tuned to 104.7 FM's Quinn and Rose morning talk show. Quinn and Rose are your typical polarizing talk show hosts who happen to think they're right 100% and the other side is always wrong 100% of the time.

It should be no surprise to my readers when I say that on environmental and climate change issues the Democratic Party candidates seem to get it more than the Republican candidates. So, being conservative talk show hosts, Quinn and his co-host, Rose, started going off on the Energy Bill, particularly on how it supposedly eliminate incandescent light bulbs from the marketplace. They, not surprisingly, during their rant slammed global warming, climate change, and Al Gore. Typical conservative talking points, right?

But then it got amusing, and sad, at the same time.

"How could Bush sign this bill?" whined Rose. "You know who is going to profit from this? The Phillips company. Is Bush in bed with the Phillips family or something. I don't understand how he could do such a thing. What was he thinking?!" Then she went on to talk about how women need the bright white light of incandescents when putting on make-up, and how she was going to stock up on hundreds of incandescent light bulbs because in the future she would have lamps with no compatible light bulbs, which means she would then have to turn to the black market.

I found her ignorance laughable, because, the Energy Bill is not eliminating incandescent light bulbs. The Energy Bill is mandating that all light bulbs starting with the 100 watt bulbs in 2012 must consume from 25 to 30% less electricity. The phased in mandate for more energy efficient light bulbs continues through 2014 when 40 watt bulbs must meet the new energy efficient ratings, and then finally, in 2020, all light bulbs must be 70% more efficient than today's light bulbs. So, I do not expect incandescents to go away entirely because companies are already improving the technology which has been around for roughly 100 years. Competing technologies, like Compact Fluorescents (CFLs) and LEDs are becoming cheaper, longer lasting, and more effective at offering light that competes with the best of the incandescents bulbs.

In Rose's defense, how was she supposed to know the truth about the Energy Bill? How do our citizens and concerned radio show hosts learn and then communicate the nuts and bolts of our federal legislation if they do not have access to the information in a way where they, in this age of text messaging and ADD, can consume, comprehend, and analyze the key points of legislation such as the latest Energy Bill. I do not know of such a system where that information is at my fingertips.

I am hoping that the next time legislation as important as the Energy Bill is up for vote, the average person who does not follow the issues as closely as your or I can simply go to a website and see what is going on, without the bias or construing of the facts that we see on talk shows or talk radio. Then, before their Representative in Congress votes on the Bill, the citizen could communicate with them to discuss their concerns and hopefully get their questions answered in a timely fashion.

If we do not know the issues and stakes at hand, then our Representatives do not know of our concerns. So how can we influence them to vote a certain way? Said another way, absent of this dialog with our Government - we will continue to see legislation that is influenced by the lobbies and corporate interests who have the time and money to get in front of the members of Congress.

We need a more democratic information system in place than what we have today. There are a number of websites that do a good job of tracking votes, campaign donations, and legislation but there needs to be more - a one stop shop that informs citizens and encourages their participation in the legislative process.

Marketing green products? Forget the "times a million" math

I've been an avid follower and reader of Seth Godin for some time now yet this is one of the first posts he's had in while that is aligned with this blog.

Why aren't more people buying hybrids and other green products? Seth thinks it is the math that marketers use to tell the story. People aren't going to do the calculations when green marketers tell us that "if 1 million switch to (enter green product here), we will cut down on emitting 100 million pounds of CO2 emissions." They aren't going to do the math and they, they being your average American, do not care about being that .0001% solution to the big problem.

This marketing dilemma has been the biggest factor in solar power not being able to "cross the chasm", although a decline in prices and increases in subsidies continue to make solar more feasible for homeowners. It is also a big problem with marketing compact fluorescent light bulbs. Even though a CFL will typically save you about $40 a year per bulb it is tough to market that when the cost is ten or more times the standard.

The way to reach consumers and make more of them "go green" is to make the message hit home. "Buying a Prius saves the typical commuter $500 a year in fuel costs. The Prius also gets you a $2000 tax credit from Uncle Sam." That is more effective than the "times a million" math, don't you think?

How to get more consumers to buy Compact Fluorescent Bulbs

The cleverly titled blog post "How Many Green Marketers Does It Take to Change a Light Bulb" over at the Marketing Green blog lists a few ways that marketers of the energy efficient bulbs can overcome the consumer's resistance to changing to CFLs. While I do believe that the higher cost of CFLs is a potential hurdle for marketers, I think the folks at Marketing Green are way off in their recommendation for a solution where the consumer doesn't pay for the bulb up front but "pay later through installment payments that are tied to energy savings. " Read the rest on their blog because I think their plan is too ridiculous to even continue discussing here.

The problem with CFLs is the light quality or light brightness. The situation in our household exemplifies this point. We often leave two of the manual lights on in our basement. Noticing that these lights were on more than any other in our house it made sense to switch those two incandescent light bulbs to CFLs. The problem is that the light is not as bright as the old bulbs, and although my wife has switched out one of the CFLs for an older, brighter bulb, and I have tried to switch them back, this is not a battle that I am going to win. She prefers brighter light over cost savings and saving the polar bears, so I lose this round. We now leave only the one CFL light on and have to turn off the brighter incandescent bulb since leaving it on too long will burn it out within a month.

Yes, I know, hard knock life. But my point is that if CFLs could emit light quality at least on par with incandescents this wouldn't be an issue. CFLs would be the easy choice. I am sure a lot of people have tested a CFL or two over the past year or so and while the brightness is much better than the earlier fluorescent bulbs, their lack of penetration in most US households is proof that CFLs still have a way to go.

New LED bulb uses 3.4W and will replace 40W Incandescent.....and most likely compact fluorescents

An innovative LED bulb named Pharox has been launched in the Netherlands. Apparently, this 3.4 watt bulb is a serious replacement for a 40 watt incandescent bulb. The lumens per watt is about equal to a compact fluorescent bulb, but LEDs have a much longer life - about 50,000 hours or 35 years if the bulb is on for 4 hours a day. Now that my friends, is progress.



read more at tree hugger | digg story

NPR Podcast - Compact Fluorescent Bulbs and the one billion bulbs campaign

NPR had an interesting segment on CFLs and onebillionbulbs.com. Check out the podcast of the show here.

onebillionbulbs.com is a great site that is tracking individual and group efforts to switch from incandescent bulbs to compact fluorescent bulbs. The following if from www.onebillionbulbs.com:

The goal of OneBillionBulbs.com is to be a catalyst for positive, meaningful environmental change by:

• educating people about the environmental and economic benefits of replacing standard incandescent light bulbs with energy-efficient compact flourescent (CFL) light bulbs
• encouraging a large number of people to replace standard incandescent light bulbs with CFL light bulbs

OneBillionsBulbs.com hopes to reach its goals by:

• * persuading people that CFL light bulbs make environmental and economic sense
• * collecting, calculating and presenting pollution-reduction and energy-savings data in a fun, interesting way in order to encourage action and attract media attention
• * providing promotional tools which encourage viral and word-of-mouth growth
• * introducing a limited amount of advertising which (a) educates our site visitors about online purchase options for CFLs and other environmentally-friendly products and (b) supports the ongoing development, maintenance, hosting and promotion of OneBillionBulbs.com.

So, please check out that website and if you are a proponent of CFL's such as myself enter the number of bulbs you've switched to CFLs. The website is tracking results by state and is also keeping track of the totals energy savings in terms of CO2 emissions as well as the savings by using the more efficient CFLs. Oh, and lastly, go buy some CFLs!

The California Way - banning incandescent light bulbs

A California assemblyman has proposed a bill that would ban incandescent light bulbs.

I expect Governor Schwarzenegger to jump on this proposal which would put California further ahead of the curve on global warming and energy efficiency. These laws are the sort of mandate necessary to change the behavior of consumers and businesses. Without a law banning incandescents it is highly unlikely that the majority of households would ever replace their conventional bulbs with compact fluorescents.

Some other green initiatives that California has spearheaded:

1). California is requiring all public utilities to produce at least 20% of their power from alternative sources by 2017

2). At least two California utilities have partnered with Stirling Energy Systems to build large scale solar thermal plants, capable of generating electricity on the scale of a coal burning plant

3). California started the 1 million solar roof program, offering over $2 billion in incentives for residential and commercial properties

4). Several other key initiates that I can't think of at the moment, check the official website for more on the state of California's energy initiatives.

Fast Company: "CFLs are a classic example of creative destruction"

Jospeh Schumpeter, Creative Destruction, and the Compact Fluorescent Light Bulb. My b-school strategy professor Jeffrey Williams would have been proud had I wrote my term paper on how Wal-Mart is helping the CFL destroy the traditional light bulb industry (I wrote the paper on Google). Professor Williams wrote a great book inspired by Schumpeter, a man who's work and economic theories also inspired the late great Peter Drucker.

Is that Wal-Mart leading the convergence of business and environmental responsibility?

Love or hate Wal-Mart (does anyone really "love" Wal-Mart??), you have to admit they are making a serious effort to push environmentally responsible products upon their cost conscious consumers. The NYTimes had a recent article about Wal-Mart's ambitious goal of selling 100 million compact fluorescent light bulbs by 2008.

Of course, anytime we see a hundred billion dollar company introduce products that disrupt the corporate establishment you have the potential for another electric car debacle (Thanks GM!). However, Wal-Mart has never been shy about sticking it to their suppliers, their buying power affords them that privilege. The buying power of Wal-Mart allows them to force change upon the masses, as demonstrated by Wal-Mart forcing it's suppliers to waste less packaging materials and adopt more energy efficient practices.

Wal-Mart has an opportunity to initiate positive change at a magnitude second only to that of the federal government. One big difference - Wal-Mart has to answer to its shareholders, whereas politicians that would have to push these mandates through the legislature are funded by the same corporations that have something to lose if new energy laws are passed.

With all of the controversy surrounding Wal-Mart's employment practices, all of the advocacy groups formed to take on Wal-Mart's failure to pay higher wages and the spread of urban sprawl, its probably good news for Wal-Mart shareholders that their CEO, Lee Scott, has done more than pay lip service to the environmental initiaves that are mentioned in this Fortune article and Wal-Mart's and every other Fortune 500 corporation's website.

Ban the Bulb!!!

I just purchased some GE Energy Smart compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs from Target and I must say I am surprised there isn't a bigger push to ban the much less efficient incandescent light bulb. I replaced my old bulbs with the CFLs in a hallway light that stays on for a while, the light actually looks brighter now. At a cost of only $5 for two bulbs guaranteed to last 12,000 hours a piece (compared to 700 hours) I will be heading back out to Target to pick up a few more of these things.

This BBC article references banthebulb.org, a website created for the cause of banning incandescents.

According to Energystar.gov's website:

"If every household in the U.S. replaced one light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL), it would prevent enough pollution to equal removing one million cars from the road. CFLs provide high-quality light, smart technology, and design, requiring less energy while lasting longer than typical incandescent bulbs."

ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs:

• Use at least 2/3 less energy than standard incandescent bulbs to provide the same amount of light, and last up to 10 times longer.
• Save $30 or more in energy costs over each bulb’s lifetime
• Generate 70 percent less heat, so they’re safer to operate and can cut energy costs associated with home cooling.
• In addition to other quality requirements, must turn on instantly, produce no sound, and fall within a warm color range or be otherwise labeled as providing cooler color tones.
• Are available in different sizes and shapes to fit in almost any fixture, for indoors and outdoors.