21st-century laws ban 19th-century lighting tech
Fri 27 Apr 07 06:50 | Tags: Green, Hardware
On Wednesday, Ottawa announced that the sale of standard incandescent light bulbs would be banned in Canada by 2012. This follows a similar announcement made by Australia's government back in February; they're going to eighty-six Edison's old invention by 2010.
The logic behind these decisions has to do with the inefficiencies of incandescent bulbs. By their design, a great deal of the energy used to power these bulbs gets converted to heat, not light; a fact readily apparent to anyone who's ever touched a standard light bulb after it's been on for a while. In terms of the efficiency of creating light from energy, or "luminous efficacy" in high-falutin' terms, incandescent bulbs are at the bottom of the charts in terms of methods of creating power with electricity. (They're still more efficient than candles or gas lanterns.)
The legislature of my own state, California, is considering a similar ban. The bill is working its way through committees of the Assembly, the lower house of California's bicameral legislature; so far, support for it seems to be falling along party lines with the Democrats in favor, and as Democrats dominate the California legislature and governor's mansion, I'd say it stands a pretty good chance of passing as long as that holds true. The bill's text makes plenty of exceptions for lamps for appliances and colored bulbs (presumably so that one can still buy replacement bulbs for outdoor Christmas lights).
The most common replacements for incandescent bulbs in Canada, Australia and other places in the world that ride the anti-incandescent wave will be fuorescent bulbs. Fluorescent power fixtures create less heat, and are therefore more efficient if light is the desired effect. And special "self-contained" fluorescent bulbs can be used in standard lighting fixtures designed for incandescent bulbs.
The downsides for fluorescent bulbs include the fact that both the bulbs and the lighting fixtures themselves are more expensive in the short term – the energy cost savings and longer life of fluorescent bulbs quickly offset the initial cost, however. Also, the nature of fluorescent bulbs require that they be in the form of a long tube. The aforementioned self-contained bulbs work around this by coiling or bending the tube so that they can still fit standard lighting fixtures. The tube may then be cased in a glass bulb so that it resembles an incandescent bulb in external appearance, though this decreases efficiency.
From left to right: A "standard" compact fluorescent bulb, an incandescent bulb, and two fluorescent bulbs which give a warm light color similar to the incandescent bulb. (image source)
The fluorescent bulb also faces a bit of a public relations battle by those who see fluorescent lighting as "cold" or "harsh" compared to the familiar incandescent bulb. The problem has been somewhat remedied by bulb makers, however, as illustrated by the picture to the right. The left-most bulb is a fluorescent bulb which gives off a relatively gives off a cold, bluish light; the second bulb is a standard incandescent bulb for comparison. However, the two bulbs on the right are also fluorescent bulbs, and are giving off a warm yellowish light very similar to that of the incandescent bulb. There's also the fact that people of modern generations are more used to fluorescent lighting from its near omnipresence in business; when was the last time you were in a bank, grocery store or classroom lit by incandescent lamps?
A bigger problem, though, is one that most people wouldn't immediately consider when thinking of fluorescent bulbs. The bulbs contain a substantial amount of mercury. Anti-incandescent advocates are quick to point out that the mercury contained by the fluorescent bulb is actually less than the mercury created as a by-product to operating a coal power plant to provide the extra power that incandescent bulbs require, so that there is actually a net decrease in mercury by using fluorescent bulbs, but that's not the bigger problem. The problem is that mercury is a hazardous chemical subject to government regulation in many parts of the world, including California; that means that we must dispose of used fluorescent bulbs as hazardous waste, and it is illegal to simply throw them in the trash (though many people and business still do anyway, just as with batteries). California does not really have the infrastructure in place to handle this sort of thing, and if the general public at large is going to have to switch away from incandescent bulbs, it's going to be a problem. Hopefully, if this bill is going to pass in California, programs to make disposal of fluorescent bulbs as easy as taking them down to the recycling center will also materialize. Otherwise, we're going to be seeing a lot of these things in with the regular trash, as people can't be troubled to dispose of them properly when it is costly or a nuisance to do so.
As I've mentioned before, I'm all for pro-environmental, energy-saving products and methods when they end up saving you money as well, and this would be a very good example of that. I'm not usually too keen on forced change, however; on saving the planet through legislation. Opponents of bans on incandescent lamps point out that almost all businesses, which use more power than homes, are already using fluorescent lighting due to their lower long-term cost, so these bans will affect individuals much more harshly than businesses.
Perhaps better policy would be to start a media campaign touting the benefits (and rebutting the perceived downsides) of fluorescent lighting in homes, or a gradual tax on incandescent bulbs and fixtures and/or subsidy for fluorescent bulbs and fixtures in order to offset initial costs; after all, what does the government love to do more than tax and spend?
Legislation or no, it looks like it's going to soon be lights out for the incandescent bulb of the 1800s; fluorescent bulbs in the home have a bright future ahead of them. (I managed to make it through the whole article – including the headline – without a corny pun; please allow me to indulge in the last paragraph.)
Get more great Ray Gun Robot content sent directly to your feed reader or email inbox! Subscribe today!
Articles & Links — Via Email Articles Only — Via Email
0 Comments | 0 Trackbacks | 
| 
Yahoo! and DreamHost: Environmental suckers
Sun 22 Apr 07 04:12 | Tags: Green, Internet
If you've been reading RGR for a while, you might have noticed I've occasionally posted about environmental issues. The frequency with which I have done so has surprised me, as I'm not the sort of person one would typically mix up with an environmentalist; but, indeed, it looks like I'm going to have to start a "Green" tag to put all of my articles on the subject under. Anyway, the quasi-terrorist actions of groups such as Earth First! and Greenpeace disgust me, and I believe that humanity is too puny and insignificant to cause global climate change; that so many people genuinely believe so… well, as The Joker said, "it'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic."
That being said, I still think it's a good idea for individuals and corporations to attempt to reduce energy use and waste output; we have to breathe this air, drink this water and walk on this planet, after all. Given that doing things such as purchasing high-mileage cars and installing energy-efficient lighting can save a good chunk of change in the long run makes it all the more appealing. I drive a '97 Geo Metro which gets 28-30 miles to the gallon; it's my first car, and still going strong with upwards of 78,000 miles. The most serious repair I've ever had to do to it has been getting the battery cables replaced. I'd like to hold on to it until I can afford to get a hybrid, and if it keeps together as well as it has, I'll probably be able to pull it off. That people would seriously consider buying an SUV which seats twelve and is equipped to drive across arctic tundra at twelve miles per gallon is ludicrous to me.
Heck, even my parents are now throwing away so little trash that they called the city garbage company and had them stop their weekly trash pick-ups. They now take a bag of trash to the dump once or twice a month and recycle or compost everything else.
But to the subject at hand. Yahoo! recently announced that they were going to become "carbon neutral." Then, today, my one-time web host of choice DreamHost announced they had just done so on their blog.
What does "carbon neutral" mean? It's a bit of an abstract idea. The concept springs from the well-meaning but highly flawed Kyoto Protocol, an international environmental treaty. Countries that signed the treaty would set pollution limits on industrial companies operating in the country. If a company goes over its output limit, it must buy "carbon credits" to offset its transgression; the credits (and the money) are then given to other companies which came in below their limits.
This guy's more popular now than he was back when he he held public office. He looks a little thicker, too… (image source)
The Protocol was never ratified by the US for a multiple of reasons; not the least of which is that the Protocol would have required strict limits for US companies, as the US is the world's largest polluter, but China, which is number two and closing quickly, would be relatively unregulated, making it even more difficult for US companies to compete with China's already aggressively-priced goods. However, some companies and individuals have latched on to the idea of paying a sort of financial penance - a medieval Catholic indulgence - for the transgression of creating direct or indirect pollution. The concept gained popularity from former Vice President Al Gore, who claims his supposed carbon neutrality as an excuse for his rather lavish millionaire lifestyle - such as the fact that his Nashville mansion uses much more electricity and gas than President Bush's green Texas ranchhouse.
So an individual or organization that wishes to become carbon neutral would determine how much pollution they are creating by their usage of transportation, lighting, heating, computers and TVs, and so on, and then make a donation to - or purchase so-called "carbon offsets" from – an organization which uses the money to fund research in energy conservation, plant trees in deforested areas, and so on.
Hopefully, you're seeing the many things that are wrong with the idea. Most upsetting is that it does not actually involve the person or company buying the "offsets" being any more green than they were before; they can continue their polluting ways, but now they're voluntarily throwing money at the problem to make themselves feel better.
Then, there's the idea of determining just how much pollution, say, a computer is creating by its electricity use; how could you determine how much of the juice powering that device came from a dirty coal generator and how much came from a clean wind farm? Then, assuming you could definitely determine how much pollution someone is responsible for, how do you assign a dollar figure to that? How can someone say "it's going to cost this much money to clean up the mess you've made?" Could major polluters get bulk discounts, maybe?
Then, once you've somehow figured that out, how do you know any of the organizations selling carbon offsets are legitimate? Or where exactly the money goes? There's no governmental oversight to this, and no major watchdogging that I'm aware of. Even with the groups are legitimately passing the money on to green causes, there's surely some overhead costs which get scraped up along the way which might be quite substantial. There's huge opportunities for everything from skimming off the top to outright fraud here.
No. Instead of paying someone to pay someone to pay a guy to plant some trees in eastern Africa, the proper solution for decreasing your "carbon footprint" is to find ways to reduce your energy usage and trash output. You don't have to be hardcore like Google and cover your campus in solar panels, but every little bit to decrease energy usage helps. Or if you're really bent on having trees planted, find a local arborist organization to plant native trees in your area. Or if you think you've done all you can for you and your company to go green, start a campaign for your city to start a city-wide recycling materials pick-up program or something like that. The effects of your actions be more apparent and tangible, and you'll be able to assure that less of your donated money gets trimmed off by administration – or eaten whole by environmental snake-oil peddlers. I'm sure Yahoo! and DreamHost mean well, but by throwing money at the problem like this, they might as well be throwing it away.
Get more great Ray Gun Robot content sent directly to your feed reader or email inbox! Subscribe today! Articles & Links — Via Email Articles Only — Via Email
2 Comments | 0 Trackbacks | |
Saving the Earth from Silicon Valley
Fri 30 Mar 07 14:19 | Tags: Green, Hardware, Internet
Two articles with an environmental theme caught my eye today. Allow me to share them with you.
Green Apple
Man, this is one screwy, freaky movie, even for a Korean flick.
The first comes from BusinessWeek, and is entitled "Is Greenpeace Off the Mark on Apple?" You may remember that Apple has come under fire in the last few months from fierce environmental group Greenpeace, who claims that Apple has one of the worst track records in the industry in terms of the environmental friendliness of its products -- a bold charge against a company headed by vegan ex-hippie Steve Jobs, and boarded by the man-made global warming movement's loudest champion, Al Gore.
The article's author, Arik Hesseldahl, starts off on a tangental but familiar note.
I live in New York City, but I was born in Oregon, and Oregonians are no strangers to environmental controversies. During my college years the state was enflamed by a debate over how to protect the Northern spotted owl, a peculiar little bird with so strong a penchant for nesting in large trees in "old growth" forests that it found itself unable to flourish in younger forests.
Environmentalists rallied around the bird to reduce the amount of logging on federally administered forests, and when the U.S. government decided to add the owl to the list of threatened species, logging in the Northwest slowed way down. Many jobs were lost and small, independent logging outfits shuttered.
Why was it familiar? Because I grew up in northern California, also among the huge redwood trees and the slightly smaller men that harvested them, and I remember all of the contention resulting from the little flying buggers. (The government actually never did list the bird as threatened, but it was looking like they were going to for a while.)
Mr Hesseldahl goes on to argue that Apple's fabrication process is no dirtier than that of Dell, and Dell makes over seven times as many computers as Apple. So maybe Apple isn't such an environmental bad guy after all. But what struck me as equally poignant was this comment made by a commentator named Professor Batty on Fake Steve Jobs' entry (mild NSFW language) on this article.
... so Apple develops a successful music delivery system which weighs a few ounces, one that has already effectively eliminated thousands of tons of plastic and vinyl and miscellaneous electronic garbage (shall we return to boom boxes?) and Greenpeace picks on them?
A good point. Besides other benefits of electronic distribution of media, such the elimination of manufacturing and transporting costs and nearly instant delivery, it also eliminates the need for materials to manufacture the storage media (be it a book, a CD, or what have you), as well as the transportation of the materials and the finished product. Maybe Greenpeace owes Apple an apology…
Google Earth
The next article comes by way of Ars Technica and is entitled "It's easy being green: Google goes solar." It turns out Google has installed solar panels on the roofs of the buildings on its campus, as well as over some parking areas. "The installation can generate 30 percent of Google's peak demand power, or enough to light about 1,000 California homes." The installation was very expensive; no price is specified, but Google said the price would not have been bearable even for them were they not receiving tax rebates and subsidies to help buffer the cost. Still, they expect to make back the cost of the installation in energy savings by within a decade.
Humans are still far worse than plants at turning the sun's light into energy, but solar power efficiency is slowly improving -- and costs are slowly declining. Do you imagine you'll ever own a house with a solar satellite dish in your lifetime? I suppose if you got bored, you could take out the solar collector and use the dish as an Archimedes death ray.
Get more great Ray Gun Robot content sent directly to your feed reader or email inbox! Subscribe today! Articles & Links — Via Email Articles Only — Via Email
1 Comment | 0 Trackbacks | |
Why only idiots use disposable batteries
Sat 24 Mar 07 04:14 | Tags: Green, Hardware, Profit
Note: I'm still feeling a bit sick, but I figured I really needed to get an article done today lest I be revealed as considered a lazy blogger. As the old head's still a bit cloudy, please forgive me if this article has a few more examples of bad grammar, typos, and just plain idiocy than normal.
Is that title provocative enough for you? Cool bloggers always use eye-catching titles, even if they're edgier or more hostile than the text of the actual article. Still, it's the twenty-first century. Why are people still buying disposable batteries?
Cool bloggers always use images in their articles. (This blog now sponsored by Quantaray! …Not really.)
Their use must be declining, to be sure; if not volume-wise, than by the percentage of the devices that use them. Laptop and palmtop computers, digital audio players, portable video game systems, cell phones, and other common consumer electronics come with their own rechargeable batteries built-in nowadays. But there's still many other devices that do not come with their own batteries; remote controls, video game controllers, and flashlights, to name some common examples. If you're smart, you're buying and using rechargeable batteries in those devices too. Here's several reasons why you should use rechargeable batteries instead of disposable ones in any electronic device that gives you the option.
Cool bloggers always use lists
- There's less of an environmental impact. Now I'm far from a tree-hugger, but it's a fact that batteries contain a soup of chemicals that aren't a lot of fun to have around. If you can have one set of batteries that you use five hundred times, you're keeping four hundred ninety-nine servings of that soup out of landfills. You're also not wasting the metal casings the batteries are made of, and are avoiding the environmental impacts of the batteries' manufacture and shipping. Every little bit helps.
- You won't run afoul of the law. What the heck do I mean by that? This goes along with the ecology thing. Here in California, it is actually illegal to throw away batteries nowadays; they are classified as hazardous waste and must be either recycled or taken to a hazardous waste disposal facility. Granted, this law is often flaunted flouted, but if you want to live within the letter of the law, you cannot throw them away. You may have similar laws on the disposal of batteries on the books in your area; ask around at electronics stores. Needless to say, if you have to dispose of batteries in some annoying way, rechargeable batteries are a great choice since they do not have to be disposed of as often.
- You'll save money. Starting to use rechargeable batteries is initially expensive; the batteries themselves can be around three times the cost of disposable batteries, and you must buy a charger as well. Consider the cost an investment; depending on how quickly you burn through batteries, this cost will eventually pay for itself because you will no longer be having to run to the store whenever you need new batteries. And keep in mind that you don't have to buy all the rechargeable batteries you need all at once; you can mitigate the cost over time by simply waiting until the disposable batteries your devices expire, then replacing those with rechargeable batteries instead of disposable ones. Like disposables, rechargeable batteries are typically fully-charged when they're sold.
- You'll never run out of batteries. If you keep a spare set of rechargeable batteries available, then whenever a device's batteries expire, you can just swap those for the spare, then recharge the expired ones and set those aside as the spare set for the next time. You'll have very little down time for the battery-eating device, and since you'll always have a set set aside as spares, it's like you have a bottomless well of batteries to draw from.
How to get started
So have I convinced you to take up the rechargeable battery cause yet? Glad to hear it. Here's how to get started.
The first thing you need to do is choose which type of rechargeable battery you wish to use. There are four types of rechargeable batteries in common use today; lithium-ion (Li-ion), nickel-cadmium (Ni-Cad or Ni-Cd), nickel metal hydride (Ni-MH), and rechargeable alkaline.
Lithium-ion batteries are typically the types used in cell phones, video game systems, and "built-in" to other consumer electronics. To the best of my knowledge, no company makes li-ion batteries in standard forms (AA, AAA, etc), so don't worry about those.
Rechargeable alkaline batteries are basically like disposable alkaline batteries, but with a special composition which makes them more conductive to recharging than disposable alkalines. (Don't try to charge a disposable alkaline; it may work, or it may explode!) When I first started using rechargeable batteries, I used rechargeable alkalines; you may recall that Rayovac had a huge advertising push for their Renewal brand of rechargeable alkalines. However, I wouldn't recommend using rechargeable alkalines, because by my own experience, the batteries can be prone to leakage. (In a possibly related note, Rayovac has discontinued their Renewal line, though other companies still sell rechargeable alkaline batteries and chargers.) If you see a crystalline white grit on an alkaline battery or in a charger or device, this is leaking battery matter! It's corrosive, so try not to touch it with your bare hands, and wash with plenty of water if you do. Dispose of the batteries, put on some gloves and try to swab the white gunk out of the device with some water and paper towels -- if it's worth trying to save it.
Or just avoid the risk of leakage and go with nickel-cadmium or nickel metal hydride batteries. Ni-Cad and Ni-MH batteries can usually use the same charger, so long as you only charge one type at once (you should not put these batteries into an alkaline charger or vice-versa). I've been using the same set of Ni-MH batteries in my digital camera pretty much ever since I got it two and a half years ago, and have been satisfied with their performance. The main difference between Ni-Cad and Ni-MH batteries is that Ni-MH batteries are less susceptible to the memory effect; with Ni-Cads, it's recommended that you discharge the batteries as fully as possible before charging them again, but this is not necessary for Ni-MHs. UPDATE: Matt says in the comments that I've got this wrong, and that you should recharge batteries "when they're close to discharged, but not fully discharged." Hmm, perhaps I got confused.
One disadvantage that nickel-based batteries have compared to rechargeable (and disposable) alkalines is that their voltage output is actually a little bit less; an alkaline AA battery will put out about 1.5 volts when fully charged, whereas these batteries will put out 1.2 to 1.3 volts. However, modern devices are smart enough to deal with battery output this low, since battery voltage drops over the life of a battery anyway; for example, a flashlight with fresh batteries puts out a brighter light than one with nearly-dead batteries. I've never had the lower output of Ni-MH batteries be an issue in any device I've used them in. Another disadvantage is that nickel-based batteries take longer to recharge than alkaline ones, if I'm not mistaken. Still, I think that Ni-MH batteries are a better choice.
Once you've decided the type of batteries you'll use, you'll need to get a charger to charge them in. Picking chargers can take a bit of forward-thinking; you'll want to get a charger that charges all types of batteries you intend to use. Personally, I don't use C or D batteries in anything anymore, so I just have a small charger (shown in the picture) which charges AA batteries. It does not work with AAA batteries, but fortunately, I don't have a need for any of those at this point in life either; I imagine I may have to buy a charger which supports those at some point in the future, though. One essential feature to look for in a charger is a charging auto shut-off that can detect when the batteries are full and stop charging; over-charging can cause batteries to leak or explode. Most good chargers you'll find will have this feature, but some cheaper ones may not.
So get out there and get your charger, and the next time the batteries die in your digital camera or remote control, replace them with rechargeables instead. Whether you're interesting in saving the Earth or just saving some money, you can't go wrong with rechargeable batteries. (Cool bloggers always end their entries with energetic, positive sentences.)
Get more great Ray Gun Robot content sent directly to your feed reader or email inbox! Subscribe today! Articles & Links — Via Email Articles Only — Via Email
7 Comments | 0 Trackbacks | |