Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Wal-Mart's bright idea
The New York Times is promoting Wal-Mart's corporate lightbulb initiative on its front page this morning. Wal-Mart is apparently making a huge effort to move its vast herd of customers to energy-sipping screw-in florescent light bulbs (which, by the way, don't look like "bulbs" at all). As you can see from the Times graphic at right, florescent bulbs save energy, carbon and money over far more popular incandescent bulbs.These bulbs have been around a long time, but incandescent bulbs outsell them nine to one at Wal-Mart, and the ratio is probably even greater in other stores. Why haven't consumers embraced florescent bulbs, which offer so many advantages? First, they are much more expensive to buy, so the cost savings requires a leap of faith. Second, florescent light is just not as nice as incandescent. Apart from manifest aesthetic differences, I have read (can't find the link) that it is much better for your eyes to read by incandescent light. That hasn't stopped us from using the florescent bulbs in certain places, but they are not the TigerHawk default light source.
In any case, if Wal-Mart is successful in its campaign -- which is designed to alter American attitudes about energy conservation -- it will create no end of consequences, both intended and unintended. Since most incandescent bulbs are made in the United States and the florescent bulbs are imported from Asia, it will shift lightbulb manufacturing jobs overseas. Of course, if Americans save the $30 per bulb/lifetime that the Times reports, that money will be plowed back into other consumption or investment and new jobs will diffuse through the economy. If you happen to make lightbulbs, however, it's not too soon to look for a new job.
The new bulbs contain a small amount of mercury, although they "produce" less atmospheric mercury by consuming less electricity. So they will have the effect of moving mercury from the atmosphere (and therefore mountain lakes in the East) to the groundwater around landfills (where we will dump expired florescent light bulbs). If Wal-Mart succeeds, long about 2010 look for a spate of scare stories in the media about the impact of the incremental mercury leaking out of landfills. That will result in new local lightbulb recycling initiatives, which will be annoying until we get used to them.
It is also not obvious that the claimed energy and carbon savings will materialize right away. This paragraph cries out for elaboration:
To keep up with swelling orders from the chain, Osram Sylvania took to flying entire planeloads of compact fluorescent bulbs from Asia to the United States.
As light as light bulbs may be, you have to figure that flying them across the Pacific chews into some of their advertised carbon savings.
It is interesting that Wal-Mart is pushing this as a "green" initiative, part of a broader campaign to remake Wal-Mart into a "green" company. The company obviously hopes to get local lefty activists off its back. I doubt that this will mollify most lefties, who hate consumerism (other than their own consumerism) root and branch, but it may mean that the citizenry will be less prone to listen to their carping.
The Wal-Mart bulb initiative also reinforces the claims of those who argue that the private sector can cut greenhouse gases, conserve energy, and make some good coin all at once. Of course, environmental activists will say in return that it is only because they have forced the widespread acceptance of the "inconvenient truth" of global climate change that a business like Wal-Mart can make money doing all this good. Either way, it seems like a better solution than a federal initiative to promote a new light-bulb standard.
Finally, it is interesting that Wal-Mart does not seem to be pushing national security as a reason to conserve energy, even though many of us are more motivated by a desire to send less money to the House of Saud than we are by a concern over carbon levels. I'm sure there are good marketing reasons for not reminding everybody that we can defund our enemies by burning less oil, however much I wish it were otherwise. Among them, presumably, was Wal-Mart's now realized hope that it would get favorable coverage on the front page of the New York Times.
14 Comments:
By 
Andrewdb, at
Tue Jan 02, 02:12:00 PM:
I switched out all of the bulbs in the house awhile back (for those national security reasons) - the light is available in a number of different "tones" or colors - if you don't like one try another - I find it not at all objectionable.
By skipsailing, at
Tue Jan 02, 02:39:00 PM:
Wal mart will never escape the ire of the left. It's not about greens, although that's an interesting theory. It's about socialists.
One of the major endeavors of the socialists punishing the sucessful. wal-mart is just another version of "tax cuts for the rich". so wal mart can try and this is an interesting effort but I doubt this will work. When wal mart fails, the socialists will move on to thier next target.
I've watched this for years and it just doesn't change.
By GreenmanTim, at
Tue Jan 02, 03:29:00 PM:
I'm inclined to believe this is something better than an attempt at "greenwashing" by Wal-Mart. There has been a sustained effort at the company over at least the last couple of years to use its tremendous market power to shift the behavior of suppliers and customers alike toward greener practices. Just a modest change in Wal-Mart's packaging specifications can dramatically reduce the amount of waste going to landfills.
I remember a plane flight where the fellow in the seat next to me, after the usual pleasentries, got around to asking what I did for a living. Thus began a fascinating conversation between a conservation professional and a Wal-Mart executive in which he shared something about Wal-Mart culture and the environment that I have never forgotten.
It seems that back in Mr. Sam's day, any shareholder was encouraged to speak at the annual meeting. In one memorable instance, an older woman got up and questioned Sam and his team about a new property they had acquired for one of their stores, an old farm near where she lived. She said it was a shame about the trees, that big beautiful shade trees were levelled for the parking lot that could have been spared. She said her piece and sat down.
During the executive session that followed, Mr. Sam grilled his team and learned that it was standard practice to completely level the site for a new store. After that meeting, they started thinking about how to keep some of the existing trees and topography rather than have one size fit all. A small step, perhaps, but instructive about how this corporation learns and adapts once it recognizes the need or the advantage from doing so.
It is hard for many of my fellow environmentalists to swallow a more corporately responsible Wal-Mart, but I believe the current trend toward more sustainable, green business practices is worth encouraging and that this can be done while calling for increased accountability in other areas.
When Wal-mart shifts to Ethanol and Biodiesel - and its truck and truckers are the backbone of its empire - look for more choices at the pump.
By Purple Avenger, at
Tue Jan 02, 03:48:00 PM:
My house has been 100% CFL for about 2 years now.
The hassle of not having to swap them out all the time makes them worth it.
From a long term POV they do far less damage to the wiring in the house too. I've taken down many fixtures in apartments where the wire insulation in the box was cooked, and crumbling from the heat of incandescents. If some fixture has "60W Max" sticker on it, you can be GUARANTEED some moron will screw a 100/150W bulb in and fry it.
In all the apartments I own, I've fit all the fixtures with CFL's as a defensive measure.
They're also a cheap answer for older places with overloaded circuits that are always blowing fuses or tripping breakers.
By skipsailing, at
Tue Jan 02, 04:16:00 PM:
interesting greenman.
Hey mr purple avenger man, are these bulbs cooler? I have a spot in my old old house that eats up incandescent bulbs I wonder if a bulb that didn't put out so much heat might work better.
Oh and one more thing. if this switch works and these new fangled things become common, our grandkids will wonder why they are called "bulbs"
By Kev, at
Tue Jan 02, 04:16:00 PM:
"If you happen to make lightbulbs, however, it's not too soon to look for a new job."
So what is keeping them from shifting over to manufacturing more fluorescent ones here? Change with the times, etc.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Tue Jan 02, 04:28:00 PM:
I think its great what they're doing. Having the house lit using the same energy as a couple of 60 watt bulbs is great.
My experience to counter Greenman's. WalMart was building a new store in my town. The neighborhood around the future walmart fought to protect a 200 year old tree that was on the outskirts of the parking lot. It would have been easy to keep it, but Walmart refused to listen. The night before a planned protest, they cut the tree down at 3:00am to avoid the media. I guess we should have been attended on of those annual meetings.
By GreenmanTim, at
Tue Jan 02, 04:47:00 PM:
Or Mr. Sam had a different style with the little old ladies who were also shareholders, back in the day.
By Purple Avenger, at
Tue Jan 02, 05:56:00 PM:
Hey mr purple avenger man, are these bulbs cooler?
Absolutely - watts is watts is watts.
A 60W incandescent equivalent is only going to typically burn about 14W in a CFL. You can touch them and not burn the crap out of your fingers.
I particularly recommend them for enclosed globe fixtures. I've got a pair of 3-bulb enclosed globe fixtures in my kitchen and the glass globe is only luke warm to the touch with the CFL's. With 60W incandescent bulbs, those ceiling lights would be sucking down 360W, with the CFL's only 84W.
They're a no-brainer for any outside lights you'd need a ladder to change. About 3 years ago I put a pair of electric eye driven floods up near the top of one of the gables. The eye has them running about 12hr/day typically. They're still on the original 16W CFL floods I put in when I wired it all up.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Tue Jan 02, 08:51:00 PM:
Good for Walmart. It essentially costs them nothing and they get free advertsizing for promoting environmentally sound policy. Moreover, their profit on a pack of CFLs is probably 10x the profit on incandescents. That's nice even if customers burn out less frequently. It's a win-win.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Tue Jan 02, 08:56:00 PM:
skipsailing, it's not just the socialism. The Arts & Humanities Tribe doesn't find the people that shop Wal-Mart up to their standards. Too poor. Too redneck. Too ethnic. No sociology and art history majors.
Sometimes working in a field where everyone assumes you're a liberal, as I do, allows you to hear what people really think.
By skipsailing, at
Wed Jan 03, 09:41:00 AM:
thanks!
I have a old house and the light fixture above the sink is completely enclosed. It consumes bulbs at an enormous rate. I'll give this a try. I could use more light from this fixture but have been wary of frying the old wiring.
cool!
Literally.
AVI: I agree. I don't shop a walmart simply because the assault on my senses overwhelms the money I might save. Besides as a confirmed bachelor I tend to shop in places that attract well turned out ladies who are browsing, if you know what I mean.
By 
, at
Wed Jan 03, 10:22:00 AM:
The best thing about these bulbs is that they are cooler, so when a 60 watt regular bulb burns out, I replace it with a "100 watt" cfl bulb. I still use less energy and get much more light.
By Mark in Texas, at
Thu Jan 04, 09:29:00 PM:
Some years back, I answered the siren call of energy conservation and replaced most of the light bulbs in our house with CF. This was back when we were living in the frozen north where in the winter time you go to work in the dark and drive home in the dark.
The unfortunate thing that I discovered was that my wife seems to suffer from Seasonal Affective Disorder that was exacerbated by what ever wave lengths are output or not output by fluorescent lights. If that is not an issue in your household, go right ahead, but believe me that it is certainly worth paying a few bucks extra on the electric bill to forgo the joys of a cranky, depressed and always pissed off spouse.
When living in a more clement environment where most ceiling fixtures have a fan as well as light sockets, I have noticed that compact fluorescent bulbs seem to be more sensitive to the power surge that occurs when the fan motor starts up.
Maybe when the white LED units get down to something more affordable than $40 apiece I'll give this stuff another go.
In the mean time, keep in mind that air conditioning consumes a whole lot more electricity than lighting ever will and also that most electricity is generated with domestically produced coal. Most of the rest is generated with natural gas. Nobody has generated much electricity with oil since the price jump in the 1970s.
Also keep in mind that electric utilities have to keep their generators spinning at some minimum rate of power production 24/7. In the middle of the night, they are going to generate electricity whether you use it or not.
