Legislators from California to Canada are introducing legislation to either encourage or compel the migration from incandescent lighting to compact fluorescent bulbs. It could signal the most significant shift in the lighting industry since the introduction of the LED. According to an Associated Press report, a California legislator has proposed a ban on incandescent bulbs, contending that compact fluorescent (CF) sources are so efficient — they use one-fourth the electricity spent in an equivalent incandescent — that consumers should be forced to use them. The bills make very specific provisions for the shift. For instance, it would mandate that California phase out the purchase by state government of “inefficient lighting sources, including but not limited to, incandescent bulbs” by 2012 and ultimately phase out the sale of inefficient lighting sources, including general purpose incandescent bulbs, by 2018, in favor of CF and LED-based lighting fixtures and elements. If enacted, state buildings and facilities would be the first to have to make the shift, and these include any number of theatres and other performance venues that use professional lighting.
CF bulbs have a poor reputation among consumers; they have a high color temperature, they tend towards green and away from magenta, and they also tend to flicker. The technology has improved, but still leaves a lot to be desired; I tried them in some outdoor fixtures only to find they strobe when inverted.
But some in the lighting industry have already been thinking green. Creative Stage Lighting, in upstate New York, has already completed its yearlong initiative to move from quartz and incandescent lighting sources to fluorescent ones in the workplace. Employees can also purchase fluorescent bulbs and fixtures at cost through the company, which will also dispose of recyclable materials for them. They’ve also taken advantage of government- sponsored programs in place, such as NYCERA, that help businesses identify a range of areas where they can achieve energy savings. But company president George Studnicky points out that business can only go as far as the current technology will allow it to. “There’s no solution yet that exchanges a PAR 64 lamp for a fluorescent one of equal output,” he says. “Manufacturers seem to be dabbling in that at this point, but there’s not really a solution out there, yet.”
But Creative Stage Lighting has partnered with Sylvania to develop a 600-watt PAR lamp, which Studnicky says both feeds into the larger energy savings initiative but also is simply logical. “The way power is distributed, in groups of 20 amps, you can put two on a 10-amp line and four on a 20-amp line.”
But when it comes to fluorescents in stage applications, the inherent limitations of CF lighting will take more work to overcome, such as the speed with which this type of lighting element can react. “I think down the road we’ll see some progress on that with the use of nanotechnologies and the use of metals to get more effective, more reliable bright lighting out of fluorescents,” Studnicky says.
Many see the lighting business as one that has pursued green energy saving solutions all along, simply as part of trimming the costs of doing business. Jack Kelly, president of lighting distributor Group One in Long Island, NY, is wary of politicians trying to legislate energy efficiency because they tend to cast too broad a net, one that doesn’t take into account how certain industries could be critically affected.
“The target for this legislation appears to be home and business, where lighting has a utilitarian purpose; that is, I can see or I can’t see, as simple as that,” says Kelly, whose company distributes Elektralite and Pulsar. “The quality of light” — its color temperature and the way it renders colors — “is not normally a large consideration in the purchase. However, theatrical lighting is all about the quality — the brightness, the color temperature and those kinds of nuances. Although I believe our industry would gladly support the reduction of power consumed (like LEDs), the artistic demands will have to be met as well. It’s a bit like the holy grail of light bulbs — power and color temperature without using excess power.”
Then there’s the collateral cost issues. Aside from the R&D needed to develop new non-incandescent lighting technologies, a relatively quick shift (a decade is the wink of an eye at the rate government moves) to an entirely new platform will result in a surge in electronic waste. That’s another area that’s come under environmental scrutiny in recent years and which has immediate implications for the lighting industry. The pending legislation includes a provision that specifically extends responsibility for recycling system costs back to the manufacturer. The Computer Take Back Campaign has estimated that 2.5 million televisions were purchased just to watch the Super Bowl. Imagine what the pile will look like when something as basic as lighting makes a fundamental transition.
There’s no arguing that CF lighting is more efficient. The issue becomes whether it is as effective as incandescent when it comes to theatrical applications. Right now, the answer is no. But that’s not a problem; it’s an opportunity, and given the social and political shifts towards green action in the U.S. in the last year, it’s an initiative that could pay big dividends for lighting developers that act on it.
