by Mike Gray

Illumination by solid-state sources could be the next step after government-mandated fluorescent light bulbs. But, according to The Economist, there’s a fly in that optimistic ointment:

SOLID-STATE lighting, the latest idea to brighten up the world while saving the planet, promises illumination for a fraction of the energy used by incandescent or fluorescent bulbs. A win all round, then: lower electricity bills and (since lighting consumes 6.5% of the world’s energy supply) less climate-changing carbon dioxide belching from power stations. Well, no. Not if history is any guide. Solid-state lamps, which use souped-up versions of the light-emitting diodes that shine from the faces of digital clocks and flash irritatingly on the front panels of audio and video equipment, will indeed make lighting better. But precedent suggests that this will serve merely to increase the demand for light. The consequence may not be just more light for the same amount of energy, but an actual increase in energy consumption, rather than the decrease hoped for by those promoting new forms of lighting.

Scientists from Sandia National Labs have run the numbers for the year 2030 (but remember, they make assumptions about conditions that could change radically over time, like global economic output, energy costs, the achievable efficiencies in the technology, and so forth); nevertheless, they estimate that

… the introduction of solid-state lighting could increase the consumption of light by a factor of ten within two decades. …. [The Sandia scientists] see no immediate end to this process by which improvements in the supply of light stimulate the desire for more—rather as the construction of that other environmental bête noire, roads, stimulates the growth of traffic. Even now, the interiors of homes and workplaces are typically lit at only a tenth of the brightness of the outdoors on an overcast day, so there is plenty of room for improvement. And many outdoor areas that people would prefer to be bright at night remain dark because of the expense. If money were no object, some parts of the outdoors might be illuminated at night to be as bright as day.

Absent here is a discussion about how much society would be affected by much of the developed world being “illuminated at night to be as bright as day”: declining birth rates? greater or lesser crime rates? ecological damage due to the disruption of the circadian rhythms built into natural diurnal cycles? less freedom due to constant surveillance of citizens’ activities via omnipresent TV cameras—as well as a myriad of other unintended consequences?