Unintended consequences of being environmentally friendly
Posted in Commentary on December 16th, 2009 by Sacha PeterTwo years, the incandescent light bulb was viewed as the great Satan of power consumption – inefficient and costly. There were announcements that the government would move legislation to ban the sale of incandescent bulbs by 2012, but thankfully this never materialized. I cannot find any hard-coding of federal regulations governing this issue, just a bunch of press releases stating they will change the regulations. I can’t find evidence of any change of regulations that has occurred – usually there is some sort of release that happens after enactment.
Enacting regulations or legislation to mandate alternatives for environmental reasons is not ideal simply because such legislation or regulations have true costs that are usually downplayed at the time of enactment.
For example, the implied proposed alternative, compact fluorescent light (CFL), requires a small amount of mercury within the bulb to operate. As the result of a breakage (or two), one could inadvertently expose themselves to mercury vapours, which would be much more damaging than the energy savings of using incandescent bulbs. In addition, the type of light emitted from CFL bulbs is generally deemed to be inferior than the light produced by the incandescent – the typical phrase is that “it feels like a hospital in my home” is used.
There is now another example of how being energy conscious incurs its own set of costs – traffic lights. Traffic lights traditionally have been operated with multiple incandescent bulbs. The new type of lights have light emitting diodes (LEDs) which are incredibly efficient and have a much better light-up and light-down time. While they cost more to build and construct, they are much cheaper to maintain simply because the half-life of a typical LED can be measured in decades (for example, my flashlight LED promised a half-life of 14 years of continuous use).
There was one hidden consequence, however. Because of their incredible efficiency, they emit less heat. As a result, in cold-climate jurisdictions, traffic lights would be blocked with small sheets of ice, while with conventional traffic lights they would be melted by the heat emitted from the bulbs. I am not sure whether this can be corrected by future designs, but it seems that having city workers manually scrape off the ice from traffic lights would end up being a more costly solution than the amount of energy savings realized by using LEDs. This might be offset by the lowered labour requirements of not having to replace traffic light bulbs. I hope there is a cost-effective solution to this problem.
On a side note, LED flashlights are wonderful. I’ve been an early adopter of LED flashlights since they offer so much more light than conventional flashlights. My most recent purchase was a US$30 triple-colour flashlight from Walmart and playing with the blue and red LEDs and shining them on things is a heck of a lot of fun.