When Politicians Make Engineering Choices
by Paul McGoldrick

Allowing politicians to make choices for us is generically stupid of us. Allowing them to make engineering decisions makes me, at least, want to scream.

A whole swath of politicians, around the world, are offering their sage advice on green issues, and then legislate only those that seem to pan out well when responses from the public show understanding -- and acceptance. When it comes to the really important green issues our elected representatives back off, probably because one or more of their donating financial base complains.

In general there seems to be a total lack of understanding that there are other issues than the simple in-your-face statements that are offered. An electric car, for example, sounds like a wonderfully green choice until you sit down and do the complete energy budget. Where does the electricity come from, using what natural resources? What resources did the manufacture of the battery cost us? It's never a simple line, there is always a total cost, an equation which is sometimes quite difficult to calculate.

Move from electric to hybrid and you have similar issues, plus the public's general inability to pick up on what is really green about the vehicles -- instead of just harping on only about fuel consumption. Honda has just dropped the Accord Hybrid from its lineup for that reason. In the last month (May 2007) they sold only 439 vehicles, whereas Toyota sold 24,000 of their Prius. The Monroney Sticker on the Accord Hybrid just doesn't offer the same sort of gas mileages as the Prius, or the Honda Civic, and is therefore not attractive to the general public.

Now, the politicos have found another cause to push. Strangely, the trend started in Castro's Cuba before making its way to the wonderfully-democratic Venezuela. The cause has now spread to the European Union, Australia, a handful of other countries, California, and a number of Canadian Provinces.

In my case it looks like the last opportunity I will have to buy the product being sunsetted will be 2012.

What is it? The incandescent lamp…

The age of Edison is nearly over. First to go (mostly) was his electric chair. Now his lamp.

So what is being pushed in its place? Why, of course, the compact fluorescent lamp (CFL). It sounds like a very simple story, doesn't it? Efficiency, efficiency, efficiency. Anybody can sell that message with no problem at all. Everybody understands it. My colleague, Lee Goldberg, has mostly gone that direction in his New Jersey home. Many a utility company has taken to pushing the "little extra money" up-front story for the lamps, quickly followed by "but they are so much longer-living." And some utilities have even given the lamps away to encourage changeovers.

But the back story is much more complex.

To date, of course, CFLs in North America are only available with a standard Edison screw, not the miniature version. They are only available in a limited number of sizes, you cannot use them in recessed fittings, and they cannot be enclosed. Those limitations, just by themselves, have eliminated CFLs from most of my downstairs lights, plus three bathrooms.

Then there is the small question of making my dimmers obsolete and the fact that I would not work under fluorescent light with any machinery -- the risk of strobing, making a machine or tool look like it was not moving or rotating, is scary.

A bigger issue is that I would never use a lamp that won't ignite instantly in any safety or hazardous location: porch light, stair lights, that sort of location.

But I am even more terrified of the Mercury content in the lamps. With about 5 mg in each lamp, and the billions of incandescent lamps that will be replaced, that amounts to one heck of a lot of Mercury back in consumers' hands. We get rid of Mercury in teeth fillings, eliminate millions of Mercury thermometers, and now barometers, just to replace them with Mercury in lamps - if anything, a far more unbiquitous item?

It is expected that CFL manufacturers will be able to reduce the Mercury content somewhat, but it is essential to the proper operation of the lamps for it to be there.

The Government is always there to relieve consumer concerns, and the EPA is no exception in this case. This fact sheet is about CFLs but it is telling that the URL ends with /Fact__Sheet__Mercury.pdf. It is, in fact, a sheet to get the clean-up process of a Mercury spill into the public eye. If a CFL breaks, for example, you are urged to "Open a window and leave the room (restrict access) for at least 15 minutes."

Getting the hell out of there is a great idea; opening a window on a nice windy day would be incredibly stupid advice. The EPA urges consumers to get rid of dead CFLs, and the clean-up materials from a breakage, responsibly. Do you know how to dispose of Mercury in your community?

The first time that an individual consumer sees a CFL go belly-up, he/she will probably be terrified. As often as not, when they blow, there is a generous amount of smoke associated with the event…

But what galls me the most, I think, about this whole push for CFLs is a lack of understanding about the Power Factor of the things. Efficiency is like resistance: easy to understand. Power Factor is like the imaginary part of impedance: not easy for many people to get a grip on. But if a power station has to generate 2 MW to allow for a 1 MW CFL load, what on earth are we really gaining?

When there are decent LED domestic lighting solutions I will be more than happy to change out all the house light fittings, and will even more happily rewire the house for dc to power them, as long as some company designs decent dc light switches to go with the lamps. But, until then -- if there are no LED solutions in sight before 2012 -- I will be emptying the shelves of incandescent lamps in about 3 years time, hopefully leaving some politicians where many of them already are. In the dark.