Lower Cost Lighting May Not Lower Cost

Artificial lighting, despite huge efficiency improvements, has cost a constant percentage of GDP for three centuries. Christopher Intagliata reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Engineers are always plugging away to get better energy efficiency out of our products -- like cars that guzzle less gas or light bulbs that burn brighter on fewer watts. But even if we replaced all today's bulbs with energy-sipping LEDs, the world might not see any energy savings, according to a study in the Journal of Physics D. [JY Tsao et al, http://bit.ly/bdAclU] Because the more efficient lights get, the more light we tend to use.

The researchers looked at light consumption since the year 1700. Even though today's compact fluorescents are 500 times more efficient than candles and whale oil lamps, what we spend on overall lighting hasn't gone down. It's just increased proportionately to our wealth. For the past 300 years we've consistently spent just about seven-tenths-of-one-percent of our gross domestic product on artificial lighting. And the researchers think this trend could continue, because many parts of the world still haven't satisfied their appetite for light.

The upside is, more lighting means more productivity. But if the goal is green living, LEDs may not be a stand-alone solution. Instead, the authors suggest coupling those LEDs with energy policies that encourage smart lighting use. Now that's a bright idea.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe