Pajamas Media Announces “Energy Trek”
A growing number of people are worried about energy issues. Their concern may be about energy conservation and global warming, about energy independence from other countries, or often, about both issues. As a result, many people ask themselves, “What can I do to make a difference?” For this reason, Pajamas Media has created its own broad energy initiative, Energy Trek, which, in turn, has taken the reins of another parallel, more tightly focused initiative, One Billion Bulbs – to help people who want to make a difference.
One Billion Bulbs is focused on getting people to replace energy-hungry incandescent light bulbs with more efficient compact fluorescent (CFL) and LED bulbs, and has already been embraced by many. Blogosphere participants, such as Instapundit Readers and Some Daily Kossacks, have collectively registered over 22,000 bulb changes. Since its beginning in November 2006, over 120,000 bulb changes have been recorded.
While this may be the first you’ve heard of Energy Trek, we’ve been busy getting the program going, working with schools and community groups that want to make a difference, as part of our Community Alliance to Save Energy (“CASE”) partnership. By the way, you’ll soon notice an “Energy Trek” button at the top right of the Pajamas Media home page that will take you directly to the Energy Trek site.
On November 3, 2007, at one of these CASE events -the kick-off of a CFL Bulb Drive in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of the city of Los Angeles- something exciting happened: a pair of elected officials, California State Assemblymember Lloyd Levine and Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, issued a set of challenges to push both their peers and citizens at large to save energy in their homes, and they will be using Energy Trek and One Billion Bulbs to monitor the progress.
Assemblymember Lloyd Levine is the chairman of the California State Assembly Committee on Utilities and Commerce and the author of many pieces of energy legislation, including a bill to phase out selected incandescent light bulbs in California by 2012. “I’m going to take up the Billion Bulbs challenge and I’m going to email it out to my list of 20,000 people asking them to do the same. I’m also going to contact all of my colleagues in the legislature and challenge them,” he announced.
Meanwhile, Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, whose district includes Pacific Palisades and who chairs the Los Angeles Public Works Committee, stated that the Pacific Palisades community “is behind energy efficiency. We are in a climate zone crisis in this country. For families to change light bulbs in their house is a little thing, but it will save a tremendous amount of energy.” He also challenged all members of the Los Angeles City Council to change out incandescent light bulbs in favor of CFLs, and he urged them to push community groups in their districts to put on similar CFL drives.
As mentioned, this event was a kick-off for a CFL drive – in this case, the first ambitious undertaking of a non-profit community group, the Pacific Palisades Green Initiative. As part of the drive, volunteers are going to visit all of the over 10,000 homes in Pacific Palisades to encourage residents to not just use CFLs, but also to turn in their old incandescent bulbs. At the end of the drive, a local artist will recycle them as a sculpture. The Pacific Palisades Green Initiative’s founder, Karen Martinez-Cohen, is a true example of a regular person who decided it was time to make a difference – prior to this ambitious drive, the largest events she had ever planned were birthday parties for her two children. We at Energy Trek helped her in this effort both by building the 6′x6′x6′ plexiglass box that will store the old bulbs and by educating the volunteers about CFLs, and we look forward to seeing the results!
Click here to learn more about Energy Trek.
Mark Anderson is the Energy Trek/One Billion Bulbs Program Manager for Pajamas Media
OK….but don’t these bulbs contain mercury,…& if you break them you probably should call in the hazardous waste crews??? SORRY!! but this is NOT the answer, & no one seems to be doing any homework about their risks!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198
Actually, you’re wrong, coldfront. A lot of people are doing research about this and many are not containing mercury anymore.
CFL’s do contain mercury in very small amounts but its not the breakage of the lamp in your home that cause the issues its the way in which they are manufactured and the large amounts that will end up in landfills not recylced. A great idea with poor execution. Keep in mind that once you start turning your CFL’s on & off and dimm them you are cutting the life in half at best and decreasing the output by 25%+ during that shortened life. Rerun the savings with those numbers and ask if that descreased savings is worth the downstream costs of CFLs.
Don’t get my wrong, I am all for reducing energy consumption but lets be realistic with the “solutions”. Upgrade your appliances, your HVAC, your insulation. Plant some shade trees near your house. Use a programable theromostat. All of these have a far greater effect on energy consumption than a few light bulbs around your house.
“… the average amount of mercury in a CFL is anticipated to drop by the end of 2007 thanks to technology advances and a commitment from members of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association.”
There is Mercury in them!….it will end up in the water tables & environment.
‘Anticipation’ is not reliable, & mercury is still a poison esp. considering how many bulbs will be thrown out. Finally, we know how reliable the EPA & the Governmment are.
My family is switching to LEDs. Their light is gorgeous, cost-efficient & do-able.
quote from: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/cflcleanup.pdf
FYI, Energy Trek will be examining CFLs, LEDs and whatever other new technology comes down the pike.
Of course there’s nothing wrong with conserving enery–I just bought a bunch of these bulbs now that the price has come down. But when we conserve electricity, we’re mostly conserving coal which we have lots of (and don’t even start with the carbon BS). What we need to conserve (and find a replacement for) is _foreign_ oil.
There are many problems with this — starting with the fact that it ignores the differing amount of energy it takes to manufacture lightbulbs vs fluorescents. And continuing with the fact that even if we used zero energy for lighting, total global energy demand would still be surging.
The CFL distraction is a demand-side pseudo-response to a supply-side technically-solvable issue.
By falling in with the usual left-wing crowd, PM is undercutting its own credibility.
Yes, CFLs do contain mercury, but in minute amounts – approximately 5mg per bulb, or about 1/100th of the amount of mercury a household thermometer may contain, and an even smaller fraction of what an old thermostat may contain. They, like many household products such as paint, used motor oil, pesticides, and some cleaning products, should not be thrown away in regular trash, but, assuming they are recycled properly, there is no reason that the mercury contained in them should be released into the environment. To find your nearest recycling/disposal location for CFLs (and other household items), you can visit http://www.earth911.org. If a CFL does break, you do not need to call in a hazardous waste crew – according to the EPA, you can clean it up yourself according to the certain guidelines that you can find here.
Please don’t take this information on CFLs to mean that they are the only technology we, at Energy Trek, advocate. We are for people taking any steps, no matter how big or small, to save energy, including, but not limited to, changing light bulbs, appliances, and vehicles, as well as changing energy-use habits.
LED bulbs are excellent, and, as their costs come down and they become more widespread, they may supplant CFLs – especially as they use even less energy (about 1/10th that of an equivalently bright incandescent bulb), are readily dimmable, and may last longer than CFLs. Nonetheless, CFLs are a viable, safe, money and energy-saving alternative to incandescent bulbs, as they use about 1/4 of the power of an equivalently bright incandescent, they last about 10X as long as incandescents, and, now, dimmable and three-way versions have become readily available.
Finally, whether or not you believe in global warming, all fossil fuels, including both coal and oil, are limited resources. Their supplies will not last forever. Saving energy in your home will, especially as electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles become available, help us to break our foreign oil habit while also preventing us from having to radically increase our energy supply by building new power plants.
And, if that’s not enough for you, saving energy in your home, however you do so – using CFLs, better insulating your house, replacing your appliances with more efficient models, choosing more efficient means of transportation, generating your own power with solar or wind-generation, and/or changing some of your habits (all of which you can find information on at Energy Trek) – WILL SAVE YOU MONEY. Yes, there is a buy-in cost, but consider these to be investments that will eventually more than pay for themselves. It’s just dollars and sense.
Untill recently, I was a believer in CFLs. That is until I broke one. I was told it would cost about $1000 to do a professional cleanup. As a retired Meterologist who has dealt with mercury spills (yes, I practiced my profession during the stone-age) and knows how very dangerous even small spills are, I was actually willing to spend the money. Back then we had very detailed procedures for evacuation and how a cleanup should proceed. (We weather weenies did not conduct the cleanup.) Do yo think that this is too much to spend?
Patagonianplato, please read my comment above. According to the EPA, you shouldn’t have to pay anyone to clean up a broken CFL. Assuming you are comfortable doing so, you can do it yourself by following the instructions provided by the EPA (see my comment above for the link).
WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE EPA
http://www.ghorganics.com/what_is_wrong_with_the_epa.htm
These CFLs are not where research should be going now. LEDs use aprox.1/13 of a watt as compares to aprox 13 watts for a CFL & 60 watts for yer old fashioned light bulb.
LEDs are, I believe, a silicon chip inside a chunk of durable plastic. They can last up to 100 years. Their light is pure & very beautiful.
I love this ‘oh don’t worry, it’s only a tinsy-weensy bit of Mercury’
in each bulb….yeah!!! used by a gazilloin people. I have read too many stories of these beauts breaking & 1000s of $s needed to clean them up….esp if you have a toddler or animals.
The big problem I have found with CFLs, and I have been using them since they first came out, is that the ballasts often emit a high pitched tone that is very annoying and they introduce noise in the house wiring that affects the stereo reception and the TV picture.
I picked up our 4 free CFLs from the utility a few weeks ago. Cheap ones, I guess. They made a distinct humming noise and got thrown out – (sorry). I bought pricier ones to put in our recessed light cans downstairs, but the bulbs said on the base not to put them in enclosed cans. So they went back to the store. Most of the light bulbs in the house go on mostly for short periods of time — the CFL starts out dim and often hasn’t reached full output when it’s time to turn it off. Light quality is OK in some environments, harsh and flat in others. There are some good applications, but they constitute a small minority of the bulbs in our 40-year old house.
The amount of Mercury NOT EMITTED by the coal you DID NOT BURN by using the CFL far outweighs the small amount in the bulb itself.
Remember, coal burning at powerplants puts out large amounts of Mercury. So by burning LESS coal, you put out LESS Mercury overall than is in the bulb.
And pay no attention to the broken bulb at the home. The amount is so small that mosty undetectable. And since you only have a chance to break it once every 5 -7 years….not much going on here…move on.
As a safety and health exposure assessment type,we know that it is the DOSE that makes the poison. This limited EXPOSURE of once every 5 years will not affect you.
The similarities between the global warming ideology and a religious movement have been pointed out in numerous venues. However, we have apparently broken fresh ground here: an army of proselytizers going door to door!
Also, the number of times that this article, Energy Trek, and One Billion Bulbs invokes “making a difference” is enough to convince me that absolutely no difference will be made. Even Boris the Labradoodle — another Pajamas misfire — would not be moved by such platitudes.
This whole thing is kind of corny. And cute – you are trying to do your bit, I understand. My 12 year old daughter would be ever so impressed.
But have you been to China and witnessed the pollution and smog there and the power stations belching carbon into the air. Save your pennies and go to China to try and persuade them to change their ways. Or for God’s sake lobby for some nuclear power stations.
But as I say I know you are so so keen to help the planet…and you want to be thought of as a good good person. Viewing this from far away their is nothing cuter and sillier than an earnest yank.
Oh, very very good.
The problem with this idea is that reducing energy usage will drive down the cost of energy and people will therefore use even more of it at the lower price than they were using before the bulbs were changed. The only way to get people to use less energy is to make the price go up. OPEC is well aware that if they allow the price of oil to go too high they’ll drive themselves out of business. The free market will take care of the energy problem eventually but in its own good time. Thanks for trying though.
Mike,
You are so right about China.
And look at the printing on your CFL bulbs, most likely, MADE IN CHINA.
Imagine the environmental nightmare those factories are creating.
Just like current Hybrid cars.
The Nickel Metal Hydride batteries are ALL processed in China, because the ungodly dirty process of converting the Nickel into the metal hydride is too expensive to do in countries like Japan, where the environmental laws are so strict.
Another example, people on the US East Coast who would rather die than allow offshore oil rigs along the Atlantic Seaboard or in the Gulf of Mexico off Florida, but happily buy gas made from Nigerian crude.
Google “Nigerian Pipeline Disaster” if you want to see what the pseudoenvironmentalists have chosen for themselves. Better the environmental disaster they can’t see than controllable, responsible resource recovery in their own country…
In a typical home, one of the great energy detractors is a poorly designed attic stair unit. The air transfer across the enormous and often uninsulated hole is astonishing.
The Southface Energy Institute in Atlanta has some good publications for DIY energy conservation projects including rigid foam insulation cover for your attic stair.
Here’s the link:
http://www.southface.org/web/resources&services/publications/large_pubs/sf_largepublication-menu.htm
Forget the billion mercury light bulbs, if Pajamas Media and Instapundit really want to ‘make a difference’ in saving the planet and conserving energy they’d advocate that everyone on the planet turn off their energy consuming computers, forever.
The reason I cannot buy into the ‘make a difference’ mantra is that those who advocate making a difference aren’t really doing anything different other than changing a regular light bulb to a dimmer light bulb.
But I understand PJ media and Instapundit like to make the moola so they’re posturing is about as reasonable as is Al Gore flying around the world in his private jet.
Speaking of Al Gore, saw a photo of his office in which he had some five computers burning energy all at the same time.
What’s that saying “Stupid is as stupid does”
Oh and if Instapundit wants to really ‘make a difference’ he get off his lazy ass and actually rake the fallen leaves in his yard himself rather than use his favorite gardening tool, the electric leaf blower.
“Saving energy in your home will, especially as electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles become available, help us to break our foreign oil habit while also preventing us from having to radically increase our energy supply by building new power plants.” Domestic oil will help us break our “habit”…there’s a loaded word. Why isn’t it “foreign oil sources”? Why is a new power plant a “radical increase in supply”? An increase in supply is an intelligent choice. We cannot hybrid-vehicle and light-bulb our way out of Saudi, or Canadian or Mexican oil. What wrong with American oil? What ever we don’t buy that’s not our oil will sell somewhere else. Just watch events a bit longer. A crisis will erupt and then the enviro restrictions and eco-blinders stopping us from developing our own oil sources will look very foolish by comparison. As will the virtue quotient beaming down on someone in a house full of CFL’s.
I have been using CFL’s since they became available, simply to save money. In some uses, they don’t last nearly long enough to justify their cost;
From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp#Lifespan
“The life of a CFL lamp is significantly shorter if it is only turned on for a few minutes at a time: In the case of a 5-minute on/off cycle the lifespan of a CFL can be up to 85% shorter, reducing its lifespan to the level of an incandescent lamp.”
So use them, but beware.
As far as saving energy, preventing global warming, etc… well, if it makes you feel good, do it. But China is building 2 coal power plants per day, so you aren’t going to do anything other than feel good and maybe lower your cost of lighting a bit/
Having a “you can do something to help” campaign so much smells like typical American liberal solutions… feel good, feel morally superior, get a chance to “do” something, don’t trust the market and peoples’ inherent good sense, and ultimately achieve little.
What ever happened to the free market? People aren’t dumb – they’ll move to CFL’s (and very soon, LEDs which are even better) because it saves them money. Duh.
I am surprised that PJ isn’t advocating the obvious: nuclear power. Politically correct, environmentally correct bright green France gets something like 90% of its power from nukes. We haven’t built one since 3 Mile Island showed that even a core meltdown accident didn’t hurt anyone (so of course, we quit building plants… duh).
A campaign for nukes might actually help, because the free market is defeated by environmental extremists – i.e. political action is appropriate.
I read the first news story about the guy who dropped a CFL. He panicked and called someone in ‘gummint’, who naturally sent a HazMat team over, and they swept it up – for about $1000.
If there are any professional chemists or metallurgists here, can you accept or refute this: liquid mercury is no more dangerous than any other heavy metal. I’ve had a small jar of it for many decades. At school, the chem lab had a large jar of it. It was an eerie feeling to stick your hand in it and feel the pressure. (I’ve heard that you can do the same thing with molten lead. I’ll let the teacher go first.)
It boils at 674 degF, and has an incredibly high vapor pressure, so unless you’re determined – or work with it daily, you’re not going to breathe any of it. It is not a carcinogen.
If it really were such a toxic thing, most of the country should be showing the effects – nearly everyone who had a cavity filled up until recently has mercury in their teeth (as I do).
You may remember Minimata. That was the result of a nearby chemical company dumping 27 tons of mercury compounds into the bay, over a period of 36 years (3/4 ton/year). As a result, about 3000 people from the village came down with a severe neurological disease.
But it was not Hg. Some compunds are toxic. In fluorescent bulbs, the fluorescence is a result of mercury vapor and argon gas – but when the lamp is off, it’s almost certainly cooler than 674 degF, so it’s a liquid. The amount is typically about 5 mg – about the size of a ballpoint pen tip.
I’ll use CFLs because they can lower my electric bill (if I can work out the lifetime over daily on/off cycles). But mercury is not part of the equation.
Liquid mercury is just another element. Don’t drink it. Don’t eat sodium or chlorine either – unless they’re part of a molecule of NaCl.
We should let our leaders learn a little science before they go off on wild tangents and start running around like decapitated chickens.
Until this I had respect for Pajamas media but it will take along time to reestablish my confidence. Peer review of engineering and economic lifetime costs and benefits needs to be done to confirm or deny manufacturers claims. For example: cost of servicable incandescent bulbs trashed. Cost of manufacturing.
True cost and price of equal lighting CFLs. True operating cost for equal lighting. True life of CFLs.
I suspect they are not all they are cracked up to be.
ZZMike… technical info…
I spilled a small amount of mercury and decided to do an EPA-style cleanup. Part of that involved renting a mercury vapor meter, so I could actually measure what happened.
Liquid mercury per se is not particularly toxic (people used to ingest significant quantities of it as medicine, and those of us old enough used to play around with it as kids).
However, if the surface area grows because it gets smeared onto the right sort of surface (cloth, for example), the evaporation is much higher and the levels in the air reach toxic amounts. I measured this myself – where a minute fraction of the mercury from a thermometer got onto a rug.
My conclusion – a little bit of mercury can result in air levels exceeding EPA and OSHA standards. This is probably not really an issue except perhaps for children or pregnant folks.
Can’t find a cfl that has the performance required for a reading light. Our use numbers on light bulbs is much less that presented in the analysis that I have seen. In my analysis the energy savings in only marginal. Perhaps you should re-examine the case for replacing these bulbs.
John Moore has the answer – BUILD NUKE PLANTS. I’ll add my two cents worth – FASTER PLEASE. If we gnerated 90 percent of our electric power with nukes just think how much greener we would be and how much oil would be available for other uses. And as we change to electrically powered vehicles 15 to 20 years out there will be a clean non-foreign source of electricity to fuel them. Nuke plants are safe and modern designs would be even safer. (Consider the lives lost to nuclear power generation vs coal or oil fired generation and don’t forget the downstream air pollution effects of fossil fueled plants) This should be a campaign issue – no promise to build nuke plants by executive order no vote. As for the light bulbs, we use them in all locations where they stay on for long periods and use filiments where they have short cycles. When LED’s get sanely priced we will use them preferentially. Common sense does have its application. BUILD LOTS OF NUKES SOON.