IDIOT LIGHTS: The federally funded National Optical Astronomy Observatory reports that poorly-aimed, unshielded outdoor lights waste 17.4 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in the U.S. each year.
Image: Brand X Pictures
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Dear EarthTalk: Has anyone calculated the energy wasted at night by unnecessary lighting in and around buildings? What can we do to reduce our light footprint?—Bill Rehkamp, via e-mail
Americans do squander a lot of electricity keeping things lit up at night while most of us sleep. This light blocks our view of the night sky and stars, creates glare hazards on roads, messes with our circadian sleep-wake rhythms, interrupts the patterns of nocturnal wildlife, and is by and large annoying. It also takes a financial toll: The federally funded National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO) reports that poorly-aimed, unshielded outdoor lights waste $2 billion (17 billion kilowatt-hours) of energy in the U.S. each year.
NOAO has monitored outdoor lighting levels across the U.S. and beyond for the past six years through its GLOBE at Night program whereby citizen-scientists track nearby outdoor lighting levels over a two-week period beginning in late March and submit their observations to NOAO electronically. A simple star map provided by NOAO is all that participants need to track their slice of sky. “All it takes is a few minutes for a family to measure their night sky brightness by noting how many stars are missing from an easy-to-find constellation like Leo (in the northern hemisphere) or Crux (in the southern hemisphere),” says GLOBE at Night project director Connie Walker. “This tells us how much light is directed upwards into the sky.”
Over the last six annual campaigns, participants from 100-plus countries have contributed almost 70,000 measurements, giving project organizers a detailed picture of light pollution globally. Unfortunately, analysis of the data shows that participants have seen brighter skies and fewer stars over time, meaning that light pollution is a growing problem. The free and publicly-accessible data gathered by the project is not only useful for educational purposes but can also help inform planners and policymakers on decisions about increasing public safety, reducing energy consumption and even identifying parks and green spaces that can serve as “sky oases” where city dwellers can appreciate the night sky from a safe, dark place.
According to the McDonald Observatory’s Dark Skies Initiative (DSI), the solution to light pollution is 90 percent education and 10 percent technology. “We can reclaim vast amounts of energy currently wasted inadvertently into the night sky...by using light fixtures that are shielded to reflect light down where it is needed, as well as using the smallest number of lights and lowest wattage bulbs necessary to effectively light an area,” says DSI. Leading by example through the installation of downward-pointing outdoor light fixtures is a great place for home and building owners to start: “Once people see it in action, and understand its implications for cost savings and enhanced visibility, they are far more likely to adopt good lighting practices on their own.” Another group committed to reducing light pollution, the International Dark-Sky Association, maintains a list of distributors that sell approved fixtures to prevent light pollution.
Some cities have instituted standards to limit outdoor night lighting to protect citizens against unwanted light (or “light trespass”). The International Dark-Sky Association has developed a set of model lighting ordinances that cities and towns can adopt and modify to suit their needs accordingly. Also, the U.S. Green Building Council has incorporated a credit for buildings seeking to reduce the amount of light trespass and sky glow through its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program.
CONTACTS: GLOBE At Night, www.globeatnight.org; Dark Skies Initiative, www.mcdonaldobservatory.org/darkskies; International Dark Sky Association, www.darksky.org.
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentI live on a farm which most people would consider a wilderness. I have a fantastic night sky view. Each year, it is getting harder and harder to see some of the dimmer constellations. This represents a huge waste of energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe other problem is air conditioning. Massive amounts of energy is expended to undo our natural conditioning to heat. Many of our tall buildings cannot even open a single window.
Elimination of such non-essential energy consumption, would single-handledly solve our energy problems by drastically reducing demand. Of course, then the warmists would "feel" even hotter. Toughen up people, I have no A/C nor night outdoor lighting at all (not even A/C in my vehicles). It is all a matter of getting used to the heat and adequate fans and ventilation. And I AM an old man. I laugh at so-called environmentalists, who have central A/C, in home, office, and auto. YOU ARE the problem!
At the very least, can everyone start installing downward reflectors on the outdoor lighting, so that our young can actually see the amazing night sky display. GK
Mr. Karst, you don't mention where you live. If you're in a rural area of a northern state in the US or in Canada, it's no surprise you don't need air conditioning: those areas are naturally cooler. But people who live in the heat islands of major cities in the central or southern US can literally die from the heat, especially during the last 10 years, the hottest decade on record.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are climate control systems that are extremely efficient for both heating and cooling (ground source or geothermal heat pumps), that could drastically reduce the energy needed. They do require a large initial investment for drilling the wells or loops, so they're not common for single-family dwellings, but they are not uncommon in commercial buildings because they're so cost effective. Such systems could save a lot of energy in large apartment buildings compared to individual air conditioning units in each apartment.
We replaced a gas furnace with a ground source heat pump. It's the only source of heating and we live in Minnesota, where winters are cold and summers are hot. It has saved us more than a thousand dollars a year. It's especially good for air conditioning, when it's so cheap that the price is almost negligible.
We don't always have to sacrifice comfort and safety if we make the right investments.
There is no energy crisis where there is so much waste. It's only a crisis when there is NO waste and not enough to go around.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisright on
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe do it because (a)facetwit, as you call it, or babblebook as I call it, is a mighty wave of folie a deux, and internet dweebs believe in such things, obviously, and (b) because almost everyone believes that such waves throw off tons of cash before receding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf 17 kilowatt hours cost $2 billion, I'm surprised anyone uses electricity for anything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour explanation under a) seems about right. If you have a sec, tell me more about b). Does this floating babblebook garbage really generate money for SciAm?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI keep an eye on how SciAm deals with this thing. I believe it degrades the product and I do notice certain changes in my perception of the online product. Also, if it makes money in the short term, will it not lose that and more in the medium- and longterm? Like any good product that prostitutes itself for a cheap buck and later suffers the consequences?
And finally, does SciAm really need this kind of sidewalk fare or is this the owners' greed talking?
"...Elimination of such non-essential energy consumption, would single-handledly solve our energy problems by drastically reducing demand..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNope. Buildings Energy use is 39% of total USA energy consumption. About 35% of that is HVAC. And 25% of that is Air Conditioning. So .39 x .35 x .25 = 3.4% potential savings by ELIMINATING Air Conditioning. An unrealistic proposition to begin with, and pointless and downright stupid by all rational measure.
And what Energy Conservation we do in the West will have little significance for the World, and the One World atmosphere we share, since Energy Growth in Developing Nations will overwhelm all such efforts by a wide margin.
Electrification of Transport, improved building envelope/insulation, more efficient lighting, shorter and less commuting, heat pumps and maybe Solar Hot water are all laudable and helpful but we are just flogging a dead horse if we don't embrace the ONLY scalable, significant Green source of Energy which of course is Nuclear Energy.
We should be pushing all Nuclear Tech FULL OUT, new GenIII Pressurized Light Water Reactors, Molten Salt Reactors, LFTR, David Leblanc's DMSR, Small Modular Reactors, Bill Gates' Traveling Wave reactor, the Integral Fast Reactor or IFR, CANDU's/PHWR's - burning PWR waste, Thorium fuel and Thorium Reactors, Pebble Bed Modular reactors, Barge built and Submersible reactors, High Temperature Gas Cooled reactors, Accelerator Driven Systems, Liquid Chloride Burner reactors, Lead & Bismuth cooled reactors, and Focus Fusion, Inertial Electrostatic Confinement Fusion like Polywell, Colliding Beam Fusion, Muon Catalyzed Fusion, Magneto-Inertial Fusion and Fission-Fusion hybrids. With emphasis on developing large scale Factory production. The R&D cost would be trivial compared to the money thrown down the sewer on Oil Wars and Oil military defense, Coal & Oil pollution, Renewable Energy SCAMS like Wind & Solar, Agro-fuels, Hydrogen Economy and Carbon Capture and Storage.
Successful resolution would be guaranteed so problem is not technology, instead it is the Vast Wealth and Influence of the established Energy Players, most particularly Oil & Gas and their century of experience in political & media manipulation. Solve that first, and the rest will be easy.
<Nope. Buildings Energy use is...>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what you are saying in essence is that we should generate more nuclear power and we won't have to save energy at all?
Have you heard about nuclear power plants running out of the stuff that cools them and that they are fighting farmers over "cooling liquid" use and that food prices will already explode because food is becoming short and all that? Summer weather as a result of AGW not hot enough in your place? And what's wrong with saving energy from small appliances also? What's wrong with using energy more efficiently overall? The US is using what, four times as much as Europe, and you don't see room for saving energy? More efficients tv stand-by, more efficient air conditioners and you laugh that off? Not even asking if you have you heard about the new problems with classical reactor waste?
G. Karst got a few excellent points whereas your best offer is more nukes? With US safety standards and waste management being what they are?
You are pointing the right way IMO, there are intelligent ways to save vast amounts of energy. And energy saved is money made. Only look at some of the largest companies in the US (Dow, IBM, Kroger etc) and how they use energy soft- and hardware to "save millions", i.e. INCREASE profits by saving energy without compromising on safety or comfort.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSaving energy is the easiest way to make a buck.
"..what you are saying ..we should generate more nuclear power and we won't have to save energy at all.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI didn't say that. Can't you read? I did say improvements in Energy Efficiency are laudable, the biggest as I mentioned is Electrification of Transport. And this has been going on a long time and pretty much everybody who isn't wealthy does that. Canada has had strict Energy Efficient building codes since the early 70's, but still uses 36% more Energy per capita than the USA. And the USA DOES NOT use 4X as much energy as Europe, 60% more.
And the Energy Intensity of USA is 221 toe/M$, Canada 293, France 171, Germany 164, Denmark 133, Finland 269, Sweden 217, Norway 172. With much shorter travel distances in EU countries and less heavy industry. Not any huge improvements there.
"..Nuclear power plants running out of the stuff that cools them and that they are fighting farmers over "cooling liquid".."
Total domestic water consumption in the USA for ALL thermal power plant cooling is 3.3%. Agriculture irrigation water consumption is 81%. So don't look at Nuclear Cooling water as a serious impediment. Worried about water usage focus on the $7B/yr subsidy, Corn Ethanol SCAM. An avg of 980 gals fresh water consumption per gallon of Ethanol produced. Cooling of Thermal Power plants is at worst a temporary issue due to changing conditions that some current plants were not designed for. And Air Cooling costs an extra 1/2 cent per kwh.
Nuclear waste is a million times less than your Coal, Oil & Gas waste, and only Nuclear contains its wastes whereas everyone else gets to dump it into our air, land and water, free of charge. Many new designs I mentioned RUN on Nuclear waste, current 63k tons of USA Nuclear Spent Fuel will generate $70 trillion worth of clean, green, Zero Carbon Electricity.
Nuclear has the best safety record of any Energy tech, 100X better than NG, 1000X better than Oil and 4000X better than Coal. Newer designs are much safer yet.
So as I said, efficiency improvements are an ongoing mission of MOST EVERYBODY who has to pay for energy, and always has been. Biggest improvement will be Electrification of Transport, of which I am a BIG FAN. But if you think that is going to even come remotely close to solving our WORLDWIDE dependence on rapidly depleting Fossil Fuels and GHG emissions, Oil Wars, Pollution etc., you are in a state of delusion, a delusion that could cost billions of lives.
you said: "we are just flogging a dead horse if we don't embrace the ONLY scalable, significant Green source of Energy which of course is Nuclear Energy"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo which I replied: ""what you are saying (is) we should generate more nuclear power and we won't have to save energy at all"
Disregard the touch of sarcasm but I must have misunderstood you, right?
"And the USA DOES NOT use 4X as much energy as Europe, 60% more."
netsearch this: "the average American consumes five times more energy than the average global citizen, 10 times more than the average Chinese, and nearly 20 times more than the average Indian"
and you will possibly stumble over this where "people in the United States and Canada consume 2.4 times as much energy at home as those in Western Europe".
So allright, the Canadians improve the average. Stil, 2.4 times as much as Western Europeans is quite a bit more than only your "60%".
So if you'd bring the US average down to the figure you quote that would be quite a hugely impressive energy savings, no?
And why always quote SciAm on things such as water/nuclear reactor cooling/farmers?
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428919/drought-and-heat-disrupt-energy-this-summer/
Although you are a brave man: "Nuclear waste is a million times less than your Coal, Oil & Gas waste". Care to back that up in the short, the mid- and the long term? I give you a headstart, only prove 100 000 less.
Remember why we have fission nuclear? You consider that safe? In the hands of North Corea, Iran etc.? We seem to have serious differences of opinion regarding nuclear safety.
You ask if I can read? Do these playful interpretations of part of your comment answer your question?