We all know that CFL lights, the compact florescent spiral bulbs, are more efficient and are supposed to save us money. There were some issues with the early versions, but currently are living up to expectation most of the time. So now that the bugs are mostly gone and we are all used to them, we are being encouraged to adopt the LED technology. So here is the question - Which one is really better for the environment and uses less energy over its entire life.

The amount of energy used to actually light the bulb isn't necessarily the whole measure of energy efficiency. There's also the small matter of producing the bulb, shipping it around the world, and eventually disposing of it.

With that in mind, the Siemens Corporate Technology Centre for Eco Innovations conducted a study that compared regular compact fluorescents to LED lamps -- using one 25,000-hour LED lamp as a constant, compared to 2.5 10,000-hour compact fluorescents (and 25 1,000-hour incandescents).

While it's still holding back on some of the finer details, the group did apparently find that LEDs are about equal to compact flourescents when the entire lifecycle of the bulb is taken into account, although it is quick to point out that LEDs should eventually win out as they become more efficient to produce.

As LED bulbs are still very expensive off the shelf, about $30 at Fry's, I will continue to use CFLs for most of my lighting. Keep in mind that it was only about 3 years ago that LED lights that replaced a standard incandescent were over $100 each. So the price is on the way down.

For now, don't feel that you have to convert. The LEDs do last a whole lot longer and may be desirable for difficult to access locations.

While this is a significant improvement, there are issues to consider about the claim. As shown in the diagram, a Fresnel lens is employed to gather and focus the light onto a standard solar cell. This means the cell itself is not improved as the stories seem to imply, the amount of light is instead increased on the same surface area.

This is like a turbo charger force feeding the engine of your car. Similarly, we force feed the solar cell sunlight. As in the car analogy, if it is done right the gain vs the long term wear is still very desireable.

Furthermore, the Fresnel lens still requires a significant surface area. After you consider the size of the new device, not the cell size, you are looking at a 10x improvement for area required to get the same amount of power. This is actually stated by the company with a comparison of a team logo on a football field to the total size of the field. Remember, the team logo is often the whole end zone.

Blasting a solar cell with high amounts of concentrated light makes them extremely hot, so they are actually floating in water as part of the design!

There is some great innovation here, but there is still one more issue to consider, wear. Solar cells degrade from use over time. increasing the amount of light on the surface of the cell by 800x may cut the life of the cell significantly. We need to watch this technology, because there is incredible potential but I would like to see how long they last vs the cost first.

I hope the claims they are making are at least half true, we would all gain significantly.

We all know this, but how much does it really amount to? A recent report shows that the U.S. could save over a Trillion dollars with energy efficiency upgrades, and after the costs of the upgrades are subtracted it is still $680 Billion in savings.



From the article:

"McKinsey & Company offers a detailed analysis of the magnitude of the efficiency potential in non-transportation uses of energy, a thorough assessment of the barriers that impede the capture of greater efficiency, and an outline of the practical solutions available to unlock the potential.

The research shows that the U.S. economy has the potential to reduce annual non-transportation energy consumption by roughly 23 percent by 2020, eliminating more than $1.2 trillion in waste - well beyond the $520 billion upfront investment (not including program costs) that would be required. The reduction in energy use would also result in the abatement of 1.1 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions annually - the equivalent of taking the entire U.S. fleet of passenger vehicles and light trucks off the roads.

Such energy savings will be possible, however, only if the United States can overcome significant sets of barriers."

All of our efforts have an additive affect, so keep taking steps to be frugal with energy and do your part to reduce waste by reusing or re-purposing items whenever possible.

For the full report, follow the related link below:

This may seem far fetched, but if you consider that any item repaired for further use is not going to a landfill or generating extra CO2 in the recycle process, it is a benefit.

Making use of duct tape, glue or mechanical fasteners to repair items for a longer useful life is a simple way we can take action every day to curb our impact on the environment.

Take a moment before discarding items and evaluate wether or not they can be repaired.

By the way, vacation was GREAT! Now that I am back and survived my first day, I hope to get the daily updates going here again.

Hi, I had a very busy couple days on the 16th and 17th. I am now on vacation! Yeah!

In preperation to be gone until the 29th of July, I had a lot of work to do. I have a very full day of appointments on the 29th including a meeting to kick off the solar water heating system at Pleasant Hill Ed Center for the pool. I may not write here again until things settle down. My goal, as I stated in the beginning, is to keep you up to date on significant activities regarding my position as well as news related to the environment. I plan to continue chasing that goal.

For now, I am in Maryland with my inlaws. We will be in Ocean City for the next few days right on the beach. Yeah! Because we will be on the beach, I have had sunblock on my mind. Be sure to check those labels. I have a whole new view on what makes a good sunblock after learning what I did recently.

If you missed it, I put an item here on this blog about sunscreen that lists the U.S. approved UVA protective ingredients. UVA is the type of light that causes cancer and pre-mature aging of the skin. SPF is not a measure of UVA protection but UVB only. You have to read the labels.

That's it for now. Talk to you all when I return unless something significant happens or comes up.

- Brad