By Randy Norman
Shame on you, David Suzuki.
I believe you should stop promoting compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and start promoting light emitting diodes (LEDs). You are sabotaging the future by promoting the technology that’s second best.
Don’t get me wrong. I like Suzuki. He does a lot of great things. But I’m concerned that celebrities like him are incorrectly influencing the movers and shakers who supply end users like us.
LEDs use 95 per cent less energy than incandescent bulbs (compared to 75 per cent less for CFLs) and do not pollute the environment with toxic mercury.
You may not be aware that CFLs contain toxic mercury. But they do, and Suzuki admits it on his own website.
What’s more, it’s recommended that for disposal, CFLs be wrapped in two plastic grocery store bags – more than a little environmentally suspect, considering there’s a push on to reduce the number of plastic bags in waste sites.
Although they’re certainly on the right track, there’s much more that’s off the mark about what we’re being told by energy/environmental experts like Suzuki. The problem is that they’re looking at the short term and tend to accept an immediate no-brainer fix without properly researching alternatives or repercussions. Technology and politics change. Let’s keep them in step.
Electricity won’t be getting any cheaper – ever – although we will be able to ‘green’ it some more through our gift of technology. What we should really be looking at is reducing usage.
Sensible alternatives like LEDs have better efficiency, longer life, and much less environmental impact – from manufacturing to use and through to disposal – than the heavily promoted unsightly CFLs. LEDs are currently more expensive and are not being promoted by celebrities. This results in slow development and even slower implementation.
Because CFLs are more affordable and so heavily promoted – even available now at dollar stores – they are essentially shooting the progress of the more efficient LED technology in the foot.
Look at the advantages of LEDs:
* LEDs are being designed to replace existing bulbs in existing fixtures and they look good.
* LEDs use less energy than compact fluorescents;
* They last longer than compact fluorescents, almost never burning out;
* They don’t contain all the electronic components and toxic chemicals of compact fluorescents, such as mercury.
LEDs are here and now and show up in an unbelievable number of places from computers to Christmas lights to cars and trucks to your bedside alarm clock. I recently purchased an LED flashlight that uses little power, will last longer than any other technology available, and is incredibly bright. This device is on the leading edge. I challenge all architects, engineers, designers, contractors and builders to specify and install LED fixtures for their high-end clients to get the trend going.
Don’t get the idea I work for an LED company. I don’t. I just like to look at the big picture, especially when it falls off the wall and hits me on the head.
Now let’s review some more facts. You may believe that by increasing the efficiency of your lighting through any of these technologies you will be reducing the burning of fossil fuels. This is not true – another misconception.
In fact, coal-fired generated power is primarily used during peak periods like morning and early evening, not when we turn our lights on at night. Meanwhile, we are busy shutting down coal-fired generating stations (on the whole a good idea as they pollute). Hundreds of thousands of megawatts of production gone. But what do we replace it with? Wind turbines? Solar panels?
Like other such technologies, wind turbines sound good, but let’s look deeper. They’re actually fickle in nature, literally at the mercy of the wind to operate. No wind, no power. It’s the same with solar. No sun, no power.
No doubt about it. These are good and useful technologies but they have their limitations.
Where do we look to get the bulk of our day in and day out requirements?
Despite the controversy surrounding it, nuclear power is our best alternative at this point in my opinion. Nuclear technology is in fact classified as ‘green’, not because it doesn’t produce toxic waste. Of course it does. But the toxic waste is stored on site and therefore not considered to be released into the environment.
It’s about doing research with people who know the real story. In a nutshell, what we need Suzuki and celebrities like him to do is promote technology that may not be cost effective right now, but will benefit us immensely in the long run.
Let’s hear more about the real facts and not just tell people something that will make them feel good. Let’s unearth and support the right thing to do. As an influential scientist, that’s what we’ve come to expect of Suzuki, and that’s what we’d like to see him do here. There is no shortage of well-intentioned but misdirected celebrities out there. Often you need to look deep into the cracks to find the well-thought-out, logical big picture . . . the facts. In this case, although
I don’t know all the answers, I know that supporting the technology that has better efficiency and fewer toxins is fundamentally better.
David! I love you man, but let’s take another look at this. Don’t promote CFLs. Promote LEDs. Get back on the podium and promote the BEST solution.
Randy Norman is a maintenance, construction and industrial electrician. He recently retired as an instructor and an electrical training specialist from Ontario Power (Formerly Ontario Hydro) after 33 years.
