Increased productivity, not less energy use, results from more efficient lighting
(Please note: News Release from Federal research lab. Copyright concerns are nil.)
http://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/led_energy/
[font size=5]Sandia Labs News Releases[/font]
August 6, 2012
[font size=4]Increased productivity, not less energy use, results from more efficient lighting[/font]
[font size=3]ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Two researchers have reprised in the journal Energy Policy their groundbreaking finding that improvements in lighting — from candles to gas lamps to electric bulbs — historically have led to increased light consumption rather than lower overall energy use by society.
In an article in the journal Energy Policy, Sandia researcher Jeff Tsao and Harry Saunders of The Breakthrough Institute in Oakland, Calif., predicted in 2010 that the same phenomenon might apply to light-emitting diodes (LEDs), poised to take over from the Edison light bulb as the next, more efficient light source of choice.
But their main point, as three centuries have shown, was that increased light availability leads to increased productivity. Workers are no longer forced to stop shortly after nightfall, as they had in primitive, candle-illuminated huts, but instead could continue producing through the night in homes, offices, factories, and even at outdoor locations not serviced by power lines.
The original paper, titled “Solid-state lighting: an energy-economics perspective,” drew attention to the increased productivity made possible by better lighting, rather than societal energy-savings mistakenly cited as a feature of improved lighting technologies.
Misinterpretations of the original paper by two widely read international media outlets led to the confusion that Tsao and his co-authors had shown that lighting efficiency improvements were no improvements at all. This is because reductions in neither overall energy usage nor overall lighting costs would occur.
The researchers, in the upcoming article, titled “Rebound effects for lighting,” said the 2010 article generated both interest and confusion in the popular press and in the blogosphere. “This communication seeks to clarify some of this confusion for the particular benefit of energy economists and energy policy specialists,” they wrote.
…[/font][/font]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.06.050
The primary confusion over our article seems to have arisen in connection with the perceived value of new lighting technologies. Specifically, some have called into question the value of these technologies given our research, on the basis that such technologies are unlikely to provide reductions in energy consumption and so stand to have little to no effect on restraining greenhouse gas emissions. The Economist column cited above concludes its narrative with the following sentence: “So, for those who truly wish to reduce the amount of energy expended on lighting the answer may not be to ban old-fashioned incandescent bulbs, as is the current trend, but to make them compulsory.”
We do not at all see this as the appropriate conclusion to be drawn from our work. True, if long-established historical trends prevail into the future, the introduction of new, more efficient, lighting technologies is unlikely to restrain energy use for this purpose and thus is unlikely to contribute much to climate change mitigation policy on the demand side. But, importantly, such energy efficiency gains also carry with them improvements in economic welfare as they enable consumption of lighting services not previously available, or at minimum, not available at new, lower cost. Especially when it comes to the economic welfare needs of developing countries—but also the implied economic welfare gains accruing to industrialized countries—this benefit from more efficient lighting technologies must be weighed against the environmental costs of not restraining their associated energy use.
Moreover, such welfare gains, and their associated energy use, should not be seen as simply continuing a pattern of wasteful energy use. All welfare-enhancing technologies (including energy-efficiency-enhancing technologies like solid-state lighting and, eventually, smart solid-state lighting) can directly benefit climate change mitigation (or adaptation) because they provide humanity with new approaches (and the wealth to implement both new and old approaches) to these problems.
Very large and long-prevailing energy rebound effects associated with new lighting technologies must be weighed against their substantial benefits. New lighting technologies may well be a double-edged sword, but they should not be mistaken for a single-edged one. On the whole, we interpret our results to mean that improved lighting technologies should be pursued vigorously.
…[/font][/font]
= new reply since forum marked as read
There isn't always an amount of light that is "all we want" in a given situation - such that once you reach that amount, you wouldn't buy any more of it (regardless of price). This is why little league ballparks have far less lighting for night games than minor league parks... which in turn have less than major league parks. Knowingly or unknowingly, someone is deciding "this is about enough light" at a given price point. If the price per lumen/hour goes down substantially, some of that will certainly be reflected in dollars saved, but some of it will eventually result in more night games and/or brighter lighting.
Similarly, people don't always have a given computer speed (or quality of automobile or tv screen size) in mind that is immune to price impacts. They're looking for a certain value proposition (a function of both quality and price).
Using myself as an example - my wife and I went for years with a 19" tv and never thought a thing about it... but if I needed to buy a tv this year I would be unlikely to pick up a $50 19" LCD monitor (on the theory that the size was always good enough in the past so why not save a buck?)
OTOH... that could also be due to my fading visual acuity caused by years of inadequate lighting 
RE increased light availability leads to increased productivity.
Somewhat ironic then,
banning the most simple way to make bright omnidirectional lighting,
as regular incandescent 100W light bulbs 
(the halogen 72W replacement types will eventually be banned too in EISA phase 2, 45 lumen per W end regulation)
CFLs and LEDs have their advantages - agree that (mainly) Republican anti-hysteria is wrong.
However, they are notoriously difficult to make bright in compact "bulb" format
(inherent technology advantage is of Fluorescent lighting in Long Tube form, LED lighting in Sheet or Panel form).
