Saturday 6 November 2010

More on light



I'm still thinking a lot about lighting, technology, efficiencies and the rebound effect so this is going to be a bit of a ramble going nowhere.

I checked out the data on lighting for the UK, it turns out that yes, the energy consumption of lighting has indeed risen despite increases in efficiencies. For households alone, over the past 30 years the total amount of electricity consumed for household lighting increased by 63% between 1970 and 2000. This increase has been attributed mainly to the shift away from single ceiling bulbs towards multi-sourced lighting (i.e. wall mounted and table lamps, multi-ceiling fixtures) as designers, architects, interior designers and homeowners have run away with the possibilities that new lighting technologies and cheap power have given them.

If, as argued by Tsao et al, each iteration of more efficient lighting leads to an increase in total energy consumption (the rebound effect) what will it take to realise the efficiencies offered and so desperately needed? Don't we need to have a deeper understanding of what it is that specific services (in this case lighting) mean to us? Questions such as what is it that lighting gives us? Is is purely functional, extending our productive hours? Or is there a deeper psychological thing going on. What is it that designers are doing when they pepper a ceiling with a squillion lights and render a space as well lit as a hospital surgery theatre and eradicate the shadows? Is it simply as superficial as fashion?

I think its beyond doubt that artificial lighting has had far reaching influence on the development of human civilization and human progress has been inextricably and intimately linked with the evolution of artificial light.


For most of our history the pattern of daily life was determined largely by the sun and the availability of natural light. Artificial light has influenced our efficiency, productivity, happiness, health and safety. From the first fire, to simple oil lamps, rush lights, to the gas lamp and the incandescent bulb to the fluorescent lights of today and onwards to solid state lights and who knows whatever technologies that are beyond our current imaginings. Each iteration progressively lengthening the day, eradicating the shadows and the monsters that lurk within them and eating into the dark so that human civilization is now truly a 24 hour society.

Perhaps, when we understand what it is that we desire of a service and those that design the world around us are taught to deliver that in the most efficient way possible then perhaps we can realise the efficiencies that new technologies offer without the, so far, concomitant increase in demand. Maybe.

This clips a bit cheesy but I think you'll get the point.

2 comments:

  1. what a wonderful clip, I got all Northern Exposure-nostalgic, and such beautiful words and images.

    I admit to being a low energy bulb HATER because they seem to relegate us to living in a grey gloom. But then I read that the wattage 'equivalence' values given for them is wildly inaccurate... so I wasn't imagining it that a 7W low energy bulb is like trying to live by candlelight.

    Now I've discovered 30W low energy bulbs, I'm a happier camper. But it does mean we'd have to seriously recalibrate the realistic savings from swapping bulbs over - using not so much 1/10 but maybe more like 1/3 of the energy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've been watching a box set of the entire 6 seasons over the past few months and remembered the clip from back in the day.
    You'd be in good company with the bulb hating, many people can't get on with the light quality or the flicker and so on. In themselves the bulbs have offered a great opportunity for radically reducing energy demand but we seem to be incapable of taking that reduction and just leaving it. We have to just go ahead and take those savings and make more light! So (maybe i'm too sceptical) what was the point? Would it not have been better to have just left the bulbs alone? The lighting is a great example illustrating rebound/takeback. A dilemma that has yet to be addressed by 'technology will save the day' factor 10 'ists.

    ReplyDelete