Brandston Article Takes Aim at Energy Regulations, Published by Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal has published a new opinion editorial by legendary lighting designer Howard Brandston taking aim at mandates to use compact fluorescent lamps in the home, and also pending legislation that would make energy codes much stricter than today. I’m proud to call Howard a client. I was pleased to work with him to help develop the article, which appeared in today’s issue.
Get the article online here.
If you don’t like the idea of having to use CFLs throughout your house, don’t just tell the government, though. Tell the lamp manufacturers you want them to continue to make incandescent lamps, and to improve lamp efficiency. Or simply buy Philips’ energy-saving version of the Halogena, at least while it still complies until even tighter mandates come after 2012-2014.
Craig,
You know how much I enjoy your work, and Howard Brandston as a lighting designer is beyond reproach. I deeply respect both of your points of view. However, I had to disagree with the perspective put forth in this opinion piece. Take a look here. http://konstructr.com/howard-brandston-weighs-in-on-the-incandescent-ban/
No problem, James! We welcome all views here at LightNOW.
I too disagree, respectfully but emphatically!
http://kitchen-exchange.blogspot.com/2009/09/re-save-light-bulb.html
All “freedom of choice” issues aside, LEDs and CFLs are not very environmentally friendly, cradle-to-grave. All we are doing is transferring the pollution caused by creating these products to other countries – and the money too.
There are two separate, yet equally important issues here which we as a lighting design community need to address, and quickly. While I’ve read Peggy’s response and respectfully understand where Mr. Bedell is coming from, any true lighting designer should take what Mr. Brandston is trying to say to heart.
Before I touch on the “aesthetics” of this debate, Mt. Oty mentioned the most important aspect that very few have considered or even though about. So LEDs and CFLs reduce your electric bill … and the water you’re drinking just became more polluted and made you sick. Think to yourself, do you know how LEDs and CFLs are manufactured? If you knew the truth about semiconductors and how much clean water is brought into a factory and then released (full of toxins) back into the water supply, you would never spec another LED. Then we ship them off to a 3rd world country so the mercury and other chemicals from the CFL lamps and decomposing semiconductors can poison local drinking supplies? I think more research and documentation is needed on all the facts before we can even have the debate about energy efficiency and forcing these lamps on the public.
Now how far are we willing to go to sacrifice the quality of living? I’ve worked on a number of high end residences and one of the biggest complaints I hear is from wives that can’t properly apply make-up because of the CRI associated with fluorescent lamps and how “flat” they render the face/skin, not to mention the color shift when trying to dim them. No offense meant, but if you didn’t know 3000K T5s shift to cooler temperatures when dimmed, you probably shouldn’t be involved in this debate. I agree that energy savings are important, but who wants to live in a house that reminds them of their office or latest hotel room. I’m sure one day linear and compact fluorescent lamps will get there, but until they do, why force a homeowner to live in a house that doesn’t make them feel comfortable. In terms of LEDs, yes they give one the ability to create/maintain those tight coves/niches and introduce drama and atmosphere that wasn’t possible before, but they certainly aren’t ready for residential downlights (unless you think good design practice for a residence is 4” aperture Lightolier downlights).
Now what if we treated residential installations like commercial? Creating and enforcing energy codes limiting the amount of power a homeowner is allowed to use based on the square footage of the home. The homeowner could then decide which spaces to use CFL, which to use incandescent, and maybe remind them to turn off their lights a little more. Also a point for consideration, why isn’t anyone advocating making incandescent lamps more energy efficient? Once CFL hit the market, manufacturers essentially hit stop on the incandescent development, except for MR16s and Par lamps of course. I would be very surprised if there wasn’t room for further development with new materials for filaments, as an example.
Before everyone gets all fired up about what Mr. Brandston is proposing, just take a good hard look at the facts, not just the energy savings, but like Mr. Oty says, from Day 1 of production to the lamp disposal including when you wake up tomorrow morning and get ready for work, ladies especially. Is it worth lowing carbon emissions at the local power plant in exchange for lower quality light that pollutes your water supply?
Excellent points, Daniel. I couldn’t agree more. CFLs do not provide an equivalent technology, and if LEDs will, then we should wait until LEDs prove themselves and become affordable. I embrace environmentalism, personally, and often at personal inconvenience, but not when it comes to the basics of life–staying warm in winter, whether the showers I take are hot or cold, and of course, light. Why take risks with the technology that directly impacts 80% of most humans’ impression of the world around them? I also don’t like the idea of tearing all my dimmers out of the wall and throwing them in the garbage because frankly, I haven’t seen a dimmable CFL yet that doesn’t strobe and flicker–and that’s using brand-name lamps and dimmers. I also agree that setting design goals via energy codes is often a better way to go than trying to phase out a single technology.
On the other hand, I regret that the manufacturing community has not stepped up with a more-efficient incandescent. Perhaps if DOE had acted sooner on its mandate to regulate incandescent lamps … Who knows. Philips has a single product that complies with the Act, and I hope other manufacturers will produce similar compliant lamps. Until further notice, I’ll be using these energy-saving halogen bulbs with my dimmers–achieving compliance with the law’s requirements for efficiency (30% energy savings) while also achieving excellent lamp life, additional 20% energy savings (dimming), great color, easy dimming, mood setting, lifestyle enhancement, flexibility and easy retrofit.
I would like to point out Mr Brandston recommends relying on facts. Thus he is implying that the facts stated by others are insufficient in some way. To summarize:
1. Look at cradle to cradle efficiency for all products, not just LPW. This is the root of the term “sustainable”
2. Use real world testing to verify theoretical improvements and systems interactions.
3. Have decision makers know the impact of their decisions. In other words, be leaders.
Also it is useful to note that:
1. Mr DiLouie has found and uses an incandescent that will be legal for several years yet to come.
2. Phillips has submitted a product for the Lighting X prise. Whether this product wins or not it is proof that workable LED is not so far away.
3. While most people prefer to be rewarded for good behavior, California T24 shows that regulation is effective, if not liked.
I believe we can have it all. Except for the leaders testing themselves.
Excellent comments, Richard!
May any of the GENERAL ELECTRIC scientists who were working in the improvement of the incandescent lamps, comment about why G.E. suddenly stopped this project?
G.E. reported that they had important advances in it.
There are plenty of ‘quality’ advantages to incandescent lighting in addition to their low first cost. But low first cost is a major advantage to the residential consumer, as Mr. Bedell points out.
Instead of an outright ban, I would propose a different solution that has precedent in the U.S. auto industry. Create an “energy hog” tax similar to the “gas guzzler” tax for inefficient cars and trucks. Prominently label all the lamps that do not meet energy efficiency standards, and impose a $1/bulb (or more) “energy hog” tax on these products to offset their first-cost advantage. This will raise awareness for the consumer as well as reduce or eliminate the first-cost advantage. However, it also allows consumers to choose what light suits their needs, rather than removing it from the market. Some may prefer incandescent because of migraines, skin conditions, or other health reasons. Others may simply prefer its superior color quality.
In this way, consumers will maintain ‘choice’ and manufacturers will still have the incentive to develop more efficient sources.