|
| Back to Contents Page |
Home
Energy Index |
About
Home
Energy |
| Home Energy Home Page
| Back Issues of Home Energy |
Home Energy Magazine Online January/February 1997
EDITORIAL
Carrying the Torch for Energy-Efficient Lighting
About every two years, I write an editorial about
lighting. I say that significant advances in technology have occurred,
and that the latest generation of compact fluorescents (CFLs) will surely
replace incandescents if only consumers take the trouble to investigate
the opportunities. In the past two years, however, there have not
been any significant advances. There have been all sorts of small improvements,
such as three-way CFLs and CFLs that work on existing dimmers, but nothing
that unequivocally tips the balance away from the inefficient, but cheap,
incandescent.
Indeed, there has been a major setback to energy-efficient
lighting. The 40 million halogen torchieres now operating in American homes
represent a shift to lower-efficacy lighting. In fact, these lights now
waste more energy than is being saved by all the CFLs installed so far.
The torchieres are actually 300W-600W "ceiling heaters" that just happen
to produce light. Worse, these lamps are a fire hazard, with the higher-wattage
models producing enough heat to fry an egg! These heat sources are often
unprotected and are frequently just inches from drapes and curtains. So
it is with some relief that the article "Bright Prospects
for CFL Torchieres" (p. 13) introduces an energy-efficient, less incendiary
torchiere.
There has been progress on the lighting front
in the area of information gathering. "Shedding Light on Home Lighting
Use" (p. 15) describes the largest attempt so far to accurately measure
the amount of electricity consumed by lights in homes. This kind of study
is essential if we are to estimate potential energy savings, and if manufacturers
are to determine what lighting improvements are needed. Also, the first
government estimate of residential lighting energy use was just published
by the Energy Information Administration. In the report, the authors felt
obliged to explain why their estimate (obtained from self-reporting by
residents) differed from an earlier one that appeared in Home Energy
(see "Of Sockets, Housecalls, and Hardware,"
Nov/Dec '91, p. 25). If the government takes Home Energy seriously,
so should you!
It is easy to estimate the power savings that
result when an incandescent is replaced with a CFL, but how much can truly
be saved with a major lighting retrofit? In the past, everybody relied
on crude estimates because monitoring technologies were simply not capable
of collecting this information nonintrusively. That's changed, and the
article
by Danny Parker and Lynn Schrum (p. 21) describes a total lighting
retrofit of a house and the resulting measured savings. Studies like this
one--especially since it was conducted in sunny Miami--build credibility
and serve as a reminder that 50% energy savings are more than just technically
feasible; they are practical.
I look forward to writing another lighting editorial
in two years. Here's a list of significant technological advances that
I would like to write about: a CFL to replace the 150W kitchen light, a
CFL that fits every place an incandescent does now, and a low-cost electronic
ballast for retrofitting existing magnetically ballasted fixtures.
| Back to Contents Page |
Home
Energy Index |
About
Home
Energy |
| Home Energy Home Page
| Back Issues of Home Energy |
Home Energy can be reached at: contact@homeenergy.org
Home Energy magazine -- Please read our Copyright
Notice
|