Last week Phillips Corp. submitted an entry to the Department of Energy’s L Prize contest to develop a light bulb that emits the luminescence of a 60 watt incandescent light bulb while consuming only 10 watts of electricity.  The contest winner will be awarded $10 million.  In an article about the contest in the New York Times, the paper noted that DOE was testing the bulb for a year to see if it meets their standards, and noted that DOE considered the introduction of the compact fluorescent bulb (CFL) to “have been a debacle.”

It certainly was.  CFLs were first introduced well over a decade ago but were not popular with consumers.  Their light was cold (bright white without a yellowish hue), closer to 4,000 degrees Kelvin color as compared to the 2,700 degree Kelvin light that most consumers were accustomed to.  CFLs didn’t dim.  They buzzed.  They took time to reach full brightness.  They contained mercury and consumers were advised not to handle them if they broke and not to dispose of old bulbs in the trash but instead to take them to recycling centers.  (So . . . how many people does it take to change and properly dispose of a CFL light bulb?  The answer, to paraphrase Hillary Clinton, might be that it takes a village.)  They didn’t burn out quickly and unexpectedly like incandescent bulbs, but their light output diminishes slowly prior to their expiration, slowly darkening the rooms they light over time.  And they were expensive.   No wonder they were less than a resounding success. 

A second effort at their widespread entry into the market was a little better.  They still buzz, but they buzz less.  The color is improved, mimicking the incandescent bulbs to which we are accustomed.  Most still don’t dim, but some allegedly do, though not well, and those that dim poorly cost several times what non-dimmable bulbs cost.  They still contain mercury.  But, their cost has come down significantly, although in part due to subsidies to accelerate their market penetration.  And DOE still recommends that they be disposed of at a recycling center.

And, they don’t fit in some fixtures.  In my home, I have 59 recessed light fixtures which take a BR40 bulb, the standard indoor reflector bulb.  The BR40 CFL bulbs currently on the market will not fit in any of my fixtures.  When I called DOE to mention that problem, they suggested that I replace the fixtures.  It is unlikely that I (or others) will spend hundreds of dollars per fixture to replace them with new ones that can accommodate expensive bulbs that produce inferior light. 

The primary reason that CFLs are proliferating is that the traditional bulb has essentially been outlawed by Congress as of 2012.  But given the reaction to similar bans abroad, it is unclear how well American will tolerate such rules when they realize what is happening. 

DOE certainly was right that introduction of the CFL was a debacle.  This experience demonstrates the importance of getting technology right before imposing it on the country.  The cost of trying to deploy the technology prematurely or incorrectly can be a consumer backlash that ultimately delays the underlying goal.  Fortunately, the consequences of the poorly thought out deployment of more efficient light bulbs are not that great.  Light bulbs are relatively cheap.  There are many in most homes and their adoption can take place incrementally.  A consumer that has a bad experience is out a few dollars and may be willing to try again in a year. 

But the larger the item with which consumers have a bad experience, the longer it can take to recover from that experience.  Many consumers who bought poorly made American cars in the 1970s and 1980s switched to foreign cars and never looked back, a legacy of poor quality that certainly contributed to the current status of the domestic car companies. 

From these experiences we can draw an important lesson.  As we move to deployment of transformational automotive technology, it is important to get it right.  If car companies sell electric cars or plug-in hybrids and they don’t work, not in the mechanical sense, but as a vehicle that reliably meets consumers’ transportation needs, their deployment might be stalled by a decade or more.  And that is a mistake that the nation cannot afford.  While more efficient light bulbs lead to less power consumption and carbon emissions, our ongoing dependence on oil places our economic and national security at risk.  We cannot afford to delay their deployment any longer than necessary.  Yet, it is necessary to delay their widespread deployment long enough to make sure that we get it right.  Hopefully, as Congress and the car companies think about this upcoming transformation, they will take these issues into consideration and make sure that we get it right.

Previous Post  

Next Post

Weekly Political Roundup -- Going for Gold on Electrification
February 26, 2010

Making Drivers Happy
February 22, 2010

Weekly Political Roundup -- The Week's Other Noteworthy Speech
February 19, 2010