One Billion Bulbs

I am happy to present for discussion OneBillionBulbs, a website dedicated to convincing people to switch from ordinary incandescent lights to compact fluorescent lights (thanks to Instapundit). The good news and the bad news is that the program and the site operate on two levels: one to appeal to consumers desiring to save money on their electric bills, a second with the annoying “green” color motif hoping that we will all act to go “green” to “help the environment.”

My wife has been promoting our changing over to CFLs, so I decided to see what the numbers and the environmental effects like look. On an inside page (the link is called “Learn About”) the OneBillionBulbs authors provide a capital cost versus operating cost computation. The calculations showing significant savings from CFLs look reasonable, with three cautions.

First, the authors do not use any discounting of future costs and benefits. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow – that is a fundamental observation of economics. I re-ran the site’s numbers using a .96 discount factor and a reasonable assumption that an incandescent bulb lasts one year, and the CFLs easily pass the test even using the discounting. I bring up the issue of discounting mainly because many current “environmental” causes want to advertise themselves as being cost-efficient while ignoring discounting. For example, if you have to pay a several thousand dollar premium today for a fuel-efficient automobile, discounting future fuel cost savings may make a non-trivial difference in its cost effectiveness.

Secondly, while the numbers look reasonable, no mention is made of the sensitivity of the assumptions. A closet light that is very seldom on is going to be a less likely candidate for conversion than one that is burning constantly.

Finally, the website does not figure in value of time. Why is this relevant? It’s relevant because CFLs contain a small amount of mercury and in many locations in the country it is illegal to throw them out with the regular trash. The CFLs must be transported to an appropriate disposal site, which in our town is quite a drive (and a lot of fossil fuel) away. On the other hand, if it is time consuming for someone to change a particular bulb, the time factor may favor CFLs.

The “mercury” issue is symptomatic of why it can be misleading to use single-issue arguments (CFLS, hybrids, organic foods, “carbon neutral”, “no nukes”) to promote the “be green and help the environment” mantra. If the sponsors of OneBillionBulbs want to argue that electric efficiency naturally translates into a reduction of fossil fuel usage in electric power generation, that’s fine. But to answer the question as to whether CFLs actually “help the environment”, let’s look at a “dust to dust” analysis of the raw materials, production, transportation, usage, and disposal effects on the environment with each of the two systems. And, let’s be sure to include health effects, because humans are a part of the environment.

Also, so much in these “go green” campaigns, even from within our churches, seems so self-congratulatory. South Park called it “smug” pollution. I think Jesus would say that if you are “going green” to impress your neighbors or for a sense of self-satisfaction, you already have your reward.

By the way, I think my wife is correct in switching several of our bulbs to CFLs, although I’m not anxious to drive halfway across the county to throw the darn things away.