Fluorescent Turn-Ons, Turn-Offs, and Burning Truths

Hey Mr. Green,

I heard that fluorescent lights consume the most energy when first turned on. After that they consume little energy. Is this true? If so, is it better to leave them on when I am out of the room or turn them off and on as I leave and return to the room? —Bettie in San Francisco

It’s true that an extra jolt of energy is needed to ignite a fluorescent bulb, but way less than widely believed. The power surge lasts for only 1/120 of a second, and only takes as much energy as the bulb would need for about 5 seconds of normal operation. So, to save energy, you should turn off the fluorescent bulbs if you are leaving a room for more than 15 minutes.

But why 15 minutes instead of 5 seconds, if it only takes 5 seconds worth of operating power to fire up the bulb? Well, because turning a fluorescent bulb on and off frequently can shorten its life, and since little energy is used in those 15 minutes, it makes sense to leave it on for that length of time to make the bulb last as long as possible. You’ll save on the replacement cost, while conserving the material and energy needed to make a replacement if the old one dies before its rightful time.

Since fluorescent bulbs need only about a fourth as much energy as incandescent bulbs for the same amount of light, if all incandescent bulbs were replaced by fluorescents, the United States would save the energy equivalent of about 4 billion gallons of gasoline each year.  Unfortunately, less than 20 percent of new bulbs being sold are the efficient fluorescents. Consumers are still unwilling the shell out extra money for these bulbs, even though they could save up to $40 on utility bills over the lifetime of just one fluorescent.

But unless incandescents can be made more efficient, we will soon have to purchase energy saving alternatives like fluorescents or LEDs anyway. By 2014, incandescent bulbs will have to be 27% more efficient than today, and by 2020 they will have to reach 60% greater efficiency, or they’ll won’t be allowed on the market. These energy-saving rules were mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. It is such convincing piece of legislation that even George Bush, the dear dim bulb, could see its value when he signed it into law. Nevertheless, right-wing contrarians are raising a fuss over this common-sense provision. Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and 26 other Republican senators have proposed the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, known as BULB, which would flat-out repeal the law’s light bulb standards. BURN, as in Burn Up Resources Now, might be a more honest name for this nutty move, since many of its sponsors are chums of the coal and oil industry and the Burn, Baby, Burn, Drill, Baby Drill sorority.

The U.S. House of Representatives is up to similar mischief, with, get this, The Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act, sponsored by Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.), who is now regarded as a serious candidate for president. It's another fine example of politicians pandering to the bulbous likes of Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, and a horde of bloggers whining about the nanny state jamming fluorescent light bulbs down our throats.  Read the tea leaves in the Tea Party's cup: The burning issue of the day is not our hellacious conflagration of oil and coal, or the lives and dollars wasted in wars for fossil fuel, but the inalienable right to buy an obsolete light bulb. 

For more about the bulb issue, just type “fluorescent” up above where it says“Search Hey Mr Green.”

 

Flaming Buttheads, Part 2: How to Bust Litterbugs

Hey Mr. Green,

Am I wrong to be annoyed when I'm in my car ready to exit and see a guy flip his cigarette from his car, and when he gets out I nicely tell him how bad that is, in view of the fires in Arizona, and he tells me off. I took his license number, although I doubt that there is a place to turn him in. If not there should be. I am sick at the events that have impacted the lives of people and animals.

—Hotly Contesting in Tucson

You have every reason to be irked by this rude and clueless pyro, and if you wish to ratchet your annoyance up to righteous indignation, I certainly won’t object. After decades of “Keep America Beautiful” and anti-littering and fire-prevention pitches you’d think there would not be nary a remaining miscreant who dared flip, toss, throw, or dump any refuse in a public space. But there are always, as the great sociologist C. Wright Mills put it in a different context, minds unaccountably dense

Actually, you can turn the guy in. Pursuant to its Criminal Littering or Polluting laws, the State of Arizona maintains hotlines that allow you to report the location of a litter episode and the license number of the car. Hotline numbers are (602) 712-4683  and (877) 354-8837. The state’s definition of criminal littering is  to deposit “any litter, destructive or injurious material” on private or public property.”

So,  sock it to him, I say, even though you’ll be ratting him out to a voice recording instead of a real, live litter cop. Presumably some sentient authority will listen to your message and decide whether to take action.

Since littering is hardly confined to Arizona, folks in other states can find out how to report trashy behavior by calling state or local police and asking who to contact. (Your tax dollars at work.) Regarding cigarettes, while fires raging in Arizona have captured national attention, any place can be vulnerable. Lest we forget: the most destructive forest fire in U.S. history was not in the arid Southwest, but in Wisconsin and the Upper Michigan Peninsula, where the Great Peshtigo fire of 1871 that killed about 1,500 people while burning through about 1.2 million acres of forest.

I hasten to add that not all forest fires are bad. They have always occurred naturally. We now know that fires are essential to the health of some forests, and forest scientists have learned to use controlled burns to improve ecological conditions. But the operative word is “controlled,” which does not include raging conflagrations caused by reckless butt flippers and unquenched campfires.

 

Green Washing Machines

Hey Mr. Green,
The bearings in our nine-year-old Energy Star washing machine are shot. Repair will cost almost as much as a new machine. One green friend advises us to buy a new, more efficient model. But wouldn't the disadvantages of sticking a repairable appliance in the landfill outweigh whatever benefits might accrue from buying a snazzy new one? Has washer technology really improved so much in the last decade?--Naomi in Davis, California

Government calls for energy conservation--and the brilliant response from industry engineers--have indeed led to efficiencies that favor a new washing machine. Back in 2002, when you bought yours, Energy Star models were allowed to use about 40 percent more power and 60 percent more water than they are today. Some new Energy Star washers are twice as efficient as those manufactured under the old standard, and many use only a third as much water. A new washer can reduce your utility bills by up to $135 per year, according to the EPA, and by washing full loads with cold water and using a solar dryer (a.k.a. a clothesline), you can save even more. That new machine can also help atone for your area's 250-gallon-a-day per capita water habit--which is double that of water-savvy places like Tucson.
Compare washers by consulting the EPA's list of some 250 at http://bit.ly/EPAwashersPDF. If you're daft enough to aspire to a Mr. Green level of geekdom, you can download an EPA spreadsheet to calculate the exact dollar amount a new machine would save.

And don't fret about your old washer rusting away in a landfill. Appliance dealers will often haul away and recycle your used model. Go to earth911.com to find a nearby recycler.

What's the Greenest Lawnmower?

Hey Mr. Green,
What's the greenest practical lawnmower available, excluding the old-fashioned push-blade type?--Scott in Lexington, Kentucky

An electric mower is by far the best choice. And electric ones with cords are better than battery-powered models, because energy is lost when batteries are charged, and lead is released when those batteries are manufactured and recycled. A University of Florida study reports that, even with updated EPA rules for lawnmower engines, gas-powered models are responsible for the release of about 20 times more hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide than electric mowers, and 10 times as much CO2.

But a lot hinges on the word "practical," and many people just don't find cords or batteries practical.
The bottom line: If your gas-powered mower was made before 1997--the year the EPA started regulating them--you should decommission it. Until that year, one running mower emitted as much pollution as 40 running cars.
Phase 1 of the EPA's campaign required a cut in lawnmower emissions to 70 percent of their 1997 levels. By 2007, Phase 2 had rolled around, limiting mower excretion to less than 30 percent as much as before regulation. Now, Phase 3 models are coming on the market, and they emit less than 20 percent as much as the outmoded, unregulated versions.

The phase of compliance can be found on the engine's label or elsewhere on the machine. So, for the cleanest gas mower, look for the "Phase 3" mark. Because these rules apply to new engines, and because engines wear and get dirtier over time, you might consider replacing an earlier-phase model.

Recycling Plastic: A Waste of Energy?

Hey Mr. Green:

What about recyclable plastic food tubs? I use hot water and detergent to get them ready to recycle, and I'm feeling guiltier and guiltier. Since I don't use many, that's a lot of heating water just for one item. Surely that's worse than putting them in landfill to break down over the decades?
—Karen, in Malvern, UK

Have you considered addressing this crisis of conscience simply by using cold water? It works for me. 

But in any case, don’t worry even if you do use hot water. It would still be quite worthwhile to recycle these containers provided you don’t dump too much hot water in them. Consider, for example a typical food container like a one-quart yogurt tub made of #5 plastic, aka polypropylene. It requires around 1,500 British thermal units just to make the plastic resin for this container, according to calculations based on a recent energy study by the American Chemical Council. By contrast, you only need about a fifth as much energy to heat a quart of water to 140 degrees with a tank water heater (and less with an “on-demand” heater). So unless you’re using more than a whole gallon of really hot water for that one measly container, you can get by with a lot less energy than it takes to make a new one. Plus, when plastic makers use recycled plastic, it can cut their energy use almost in half because they don’t have to concoct the stuff from scratch. So even if you do use a gallon of water, there would still be a net savings of energy. (Similar levels of energy conservation also result from recycling other types of plastic.)

The energy needed to make detergent should even less of source of remorse unless you’re slathering it on like a gourmand deploying gravy. Most dishwashing energy, whether by hand or machine, is dedicated to heating the water. For example, if you use a dishwashing machine, the detergent’s contribution to the device’s total energy use is less than 10% of the amount that goes to heating its water and powering its motor.

By the way, scientific studies have revealed that mechanical dishwashers use less energy and water than hand-washers of china and flatware and recyclable plastic. While it hurts terribly to see man go up against the machine and lose—like when the great chess master Gary Kasparov challenged IBM’s Deep Blue computer and went down to defeat—my own overactive environmental conscience forces me to present this discovery.