Goodbye, Edison

By J R Ruaya

During the Independence Day celebrations in Bacolod City last week, the Department of Energy launched its "Palit-ilaw" (light shift) program aimed at promoting energy efficiency lighting by a ceremonial switching which replaces 200 incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) at the fish section of the Burgos public market.

Rodolfo Manga, energy inspector of the Philippine Efficient Lighting Market Transformation Project, claims that the move will allow the city to save almost P400,000 per year in electricity bills, and up to P1.1 million if all the 500 incandescent lamps in the market are replaced.

This innocous piece of news might not jostle past the big-time news such as the GSIS-Meralco tangle, the P500 electricity subsidy or the price of oil, but it is part of the world-wide paradigm shift towards more efficient lighting and energy efficiency movement.

The truth is, many countries have already started to phase out the incandescent lamp as we know it. In December last year, U.S. President George W. Bush signed a comprehensive energy bill which contains among other things a provision to phase out the incandescent lamps starting 2012 until 2014 when a complete phase-out shall be completed.

The Australian government aims to accomplish the same by recently passing a law fully enforcing a new lighting standards by 2009 or 2010. The incandescent bulb would simply fall by the wayside.

Other countries that have plans to phase out the venerable Edison invention include South Africa, China, some countries of the European Union--and the Philippines. During the Energy Summit last February, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo mentioned a phase-out plan by 2010, and a bill is actually filed in Congress to implement such plan.

Enter the compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs)

Expected to replace the incandescent bulbs are the compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) which use around 20 per cent of the energy to produce the same amount of light than the former. About 90% of the energy emitted by the incandescent lamp ends up wasted as heat.

CFLs can also last between four and 10 times longer than the former.

CFLs employ the same technology as the familiar linear fluorescent lamps, but are shaped to replace incandescent lamps in most applications. The reason why CFLs have not been introduced earlier is because the technology to "bend" the fluorescent lamp took some time to develop.

CFLs cost about 5 to 6 times as the incandescent lamp but the electricity bills savings throughout the life of the former easily offsets the initial high cost. Also, with the entry of low cost producers in Asia (e.g., China and Taiwan) CFL costs are going down rapidly.

Another energy efficient technology that may replace the incandescent bulb is the light-emitting diodes (LEDs) but the costs of producing them are still prohibitive. The intensity of light emitted from these LEDs are still not comparable to standard lamps.

CFL hazards

About the only environmental hazard that the CFL poses is the presence of mercury, one of the most toxic substances known, inside the bulb (which is also present inside the conventional fluorescent lamp). Mercury is necessary for production, but the amount of mercury is only 1% of that inside a standard mercury-in-glass thermometers found in many homes and in school laboratories.

If one were to follow strictly correct disposal procedures (e.g., do not break used lamps!) the hazard is virtually eliminated. Both the Australian and U.S. governments include programs to educate the citizenry on the potential hazards of the CFLs in their respective campaigns.

In an indirect way, the incandescent lamp also contribute to greenhouse gases emission by its voracious consumption of electricity which is mostly coming from fuel-fired (e.g. coal) plants.

Even without legislation, the incandescent lamp may finally disappear due to obsolescence and to the increasing awareness of the populace to an energy-efficient living. But a formal legislation could make more people aware of the benefits of a phase-out, and hasten the disappearance altogether of the incandescent bulb.

If we were to legislate the incandescent bulb to oblivion, it should be within the framework of a comprehensive energy efficiency bill, much like Australia's wherein, an energy efficiency standard is spelled out not only for home or office lighting, but also for home appliances like refrigerators, electric fans, air conditioners and washing machines, cars and building design, among others.

The venerable incandescent bulb will soon be joining the graveyard of obsolete and inefficient technologies like the typewriter, floppy disk, VHS, vinyl record--and even, maybe, the silver-based camera film.

We should shed no tear for it.