In her preliminary budget she says “The proposed budget also includes a number of innovative cost saving measures. For example, the district plans to replace all of the lightbulbs in every Boston school and central office with longer lasting, more energy efficient bulbs. The new bulbs will reduce the district’s energy bills by nearly $3 million each year.”
I don’t want to disparage stomv, who clearly is more educated than I am about this issue. However, one of my favorite sayings is Mark Twain:
‘Common Sense doesn’t seem to be that Common’. We might think 99 percent of the bulbs have been changed, but they haven’t.
We debated about whether to put that line about lightbulbs in our press release because it does seem so simple, and would invite ridicule such as we received. On the other hand, it does need to be done, because we are not as efficient as we need to be.
The key point that I would like to get across is that if I am elected, that making both simple and long term plans to cut our energy use are going to be a major part of what I work on. I am open enough to realize I don’t have all the answers and I invite comments and ideas.
That 3 million in savings according to the administration is about 30 teaching jobs. For that, I’m willing to change light bulbs.
at least have the courtesy to include the comment.
<
p>To be even more transparent, you wrote
and I wrote
<
p>I was trying to be gentle and supportive. Now I’ll be more clear. Most light bulbs in Boston City buildings can’t be replaced with compact fluorescent bulbs because the fixture is a non-compact fluorescent fixture. With pictures:
fluorescent bulb
incandescent bulb
compact fluorescent bulb
<
p>As you can see, you can’t physically replace fluorescent bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs. You wouldn’t want to anyway — the tube geometry is far more effective at casting lumens into useful areas without shadowing or zebraing the space. Now pick any building in Boston and walk around. You’ll find that the vast majority of the bulbs are the long tubes. They’re fluorescent bulbs rated somewhere between 28W and 32W in almost all cases.
<
p>
<
p>In the rest of my post, I point out ways to reduce the electric bill related to lighting — and there are a number of simple ways, such as delamping or using T5s. You didn’t link to Mrs. Johnson’s report, but I will point out that your quote of her says nothing about compact fluorescents. Nothing. Without seeing her budget I can’t be sure what her plan is, but I would bet it isn’t buying a truckload of CF bulbs. Instead, it likely includes:
* replacing T8s or T12 fluorescents with T5 low watt fluorescent bulbs.
* Electronic or behavioral changes to turn lights off at night.
* Changing the few remaining incandescent bulbs to CFs.
<
p>
<
p>Let’s be really clear here. I didn’t suggest that there were no incandescents that could be changed to CFs. I gently pointed out that the statement
is bloody daft because most bulbs in Boston (a) are already fluorescent, and (b) can’t be replaced with CF bulbs.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>I never wrote that the bulbs couldn’t be changed to more efficient bulbs. In fact, I explicitly wrote that they likely could. What I wrote is that they can’t be changed to CF bulbs any more than you could install rear air foils on garbage trucks to give them better mpg.
<
p>I didn’t write that 99% of bulbs are the maximum efficient bulb — I wrote that 1% are incandescent. Since CF bulbs are used to replace incandescent bulbs, your proposal — which has the right sentiment — is the wrong proposal. Here’s my proposal. You pick a Boston building. Any building. We’ll walk around the building and do a bulb count. I’ll bring a 3 step ladder if you like. Then, we’ll determine what percentage of the bulbs are incandescent (which can be replaced with CF), what percent are already CF, what percent are tube fluorescent, and what percent are something else. I think this will help show you that while improving efficiency in lighting is worthwhile and important, you just can’t do it with a policy like
My “ridicule” was not that changing light bulbs was too simple or not effective. My ridicule was that your proposal was akin to suggesting air foils on all city vehicles to improve mpg. Just as most vehicles wouldn’t benefit from an air foil, CF bulbs are simply inappropriate for most light fixtures in commercial and government spaces. To keep with the metaphor, I then went on to suggest that all city vehicles be maintained with clean air filters, properly inflated tires, and training to discourage needless idling. Your proposal demonstrated an ignorance in commercial and government lighting, and it is an inappropriate suggestion to replace “all” bulbs with CF bulbs. Don’t take my word for it. Call a lighting designer / architect and chat for 10 minutes about the lighting in Boston’s government building.
<
p>Mr. McCrea, I stand by my post to which you refer. You’ve got the right sentiment, but you need somebody with expertise to translate your interest and commitment to a comprehensive, efficient, and appropriate political plank. In the mean time, I encourage you to contact Mrs. Johnson and find out her plan in more detail.
that Boston currently replaces bulbs with incandescent bulbs? And perhaps the number of replacement incandescent bulbs Boston purchases is high enough that that it would save significant money? Probably not all $3M though…how many incandescent bulbs being replaced with CF would it take to save $3M? How many incandescent bulbs does Boston purchase per year?
it depends a whole lot on how long the bulb is on per week. If it’s on 24x7x365, switching from a 75W incandescent to a 15W CF would save just about $100/yr.
<
p>Of course, if the bulb is on 50 hr/week for 40 weeks a year, you’re talking $25/yr. If the bulb is on 5 hours a week (say, a supply closet), $2.50 a year.
<
p>So, if we take the middle case of $25/yr, you’d need to change 120,000 incandescent light bulbs.
<
p>This is all back of the envelope of course, but it gives a rough idea of the magnitude. Thing is, there just aren’t that many E27 sockets kicking around because fluorescent tubes are used for the most part.
I couldn’t help but thinking that you must be very thin skinned to be writing this type of post. You are running for mayor of Boston for goodness sakes and you are calling out a commenter in a post? Good grief.
<
p>You think a better posting would have been to post a general follow up with numbers from the superintendent’s budget?
It’s better than the typical post and run, never read the comments, never remember a commenter, never argue with a commenter stuff most candidates do. And stomv still wants him to link to his old comment as a courtesy!
In fact just the opposite. I invite the comments and the criticism. If I do get elected, I’d like to have stomv come around the city if he would take the time and offer his advice.
<
p>I’ll be the first to admit the release was not detailed, again it is the sentiment. It should have read, as stomv has pointed out something like “the most efficient lighting sources available”.
<
p>Again the big picture is that we can be more efficient than we are now. Clearly from the Superintendent’s handouts we could be more efficient with our energy usage, and I credit her for looking into that.
<
p>Another issue is Boston’s recycling rates. They can and should be higher. I don’t believe it is because Bostonians don’t want to recycle, it is because the example and the leadership are not there.
<
p>Thanks again, for the thoughts and comments.
attempt to really engage the issues here, so I give you credit for taking the risk. Good luck.
I am all for more recycling but after everyone in my neighborhood got huge new recycling bins with a greatly expanded list of acceptable materials, I don’t think you are going to convince us that our current administration does not care at all about the issue.
<
p>If you want to have any chance at all of beating Menino, you have to focus on the economy, jobs and big budget items, not chump change.
<
p>I would also drop that stuff from your website complaining about how your house was assessed $700K higher than it was before back in 2005 “becoming the highest tax in the whole neighborhood”. Don’t you think that could have been because your house is the also one of the largest in the neighborhood? Writing that makes it seem that your campaign is part of some personal vendetta with City Hall. It also seems to me that reminding people that you live in a multimillion dollar house in a nice part of town is not such a good idea given that Menino lives in a very modest house in a modest part of the city.
but the approach is what gave me pause. From reading stomv’s comment and then specifically calling out a commenter in a response post seems troubling to me. You could have easily posted a follow up to your original post with some numbers provided to you from the superintendent’s office. I thought it was great that you did follow up and provided some details in what the city could save based upon one of your proposals. You provided some specific numbers and what could be saved.
<
p>But this whole na nana na na feel of this post IMHO is troubling. I hope this is not the way you want to govern. In any event, best of luck in the primary.
This whole diary is the biggest waste of energy of all.
I seem to recall that Hillary ridiculed Obama for suggesting that properly inflating car tires would hike car efficiency thus reduce demand for gas/oil. Given what we went through the past year with enormous spikes in energy costs, voters never took to Hlllary’s critique. The average vote likely thought, “add a little air, get better mileage, save a little money.” I suspect that the call for energy efficient light bulbs will also be viewed as a common sense step to save money.
Don’t blame Hillary for what McCain said about inflating your tires.
<
p>
How about firing most of the political hacks that are employed in the Boston School system. Closing some of the half empty schools and getting rid of the teachers that are doing nothing than collecting pay checks. You know—-like a business and watching the bottom line. Children a hundred years ago labored at education under austere conditions and learned far more than the dolts that we have “graduating” from schools today. How much is it costing to babysit a kid per day in Boston viz a vis educating a kid in Sharon, Brookline, Sudbury?
Please don’t run our schools like a business. I’ve had just about all the Wall Street efficiency I can handle. I can’t afford anymore million dollar bonuses.
<
p>Run our schools like a household. Extra help for the kids who need it, exposure to art, sports, science and more to help them find something they’re interested in, all within a budget.
<
p>And if someone tells you kids today don’t know more than kids 100 years ago, invite that farmer to sit in on a class or two.
Every time someone insists that some government function should be “run like a business,” it makes my eyes roll. It demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the role of government.
<
p>Derail: Mike, do you know what happened to the Chelmweb forum?
I remember the Lou Grant line in your signature. Damn straight.
<
p>I don’t know about Chelmweb, but there’s some activity in Facebook (look for the Chelmsford group) and through Roy Earley’s newsletter. Wasn’t there a Chelmsford Center site, too? I can’t find it anymore.
<
p>I updated my profile with my contact info if you’d like to talk more.
The mental exercise of translating the above into an actual set of actions and policies reveals that it was mostly a feel-good rant — even if delivered under austere conditions.
As I’ve often asked: Why should today be any different?