Electricity is not a recent phenomenon to humankind. The ancient Greeks knew about it and essentially named it. They didn't know what caused it, but they clearly recognized it.
During the Renaissance and since, with the development of the modern scientific method, the mechanics or rules of how it operates began to be recognized, and many of the famous names of electricity studied it. Volta, Ampere, Ohm, Faraday, Weber, etc. This first phase culminated with James Clerk-Maxwell developing the equations and formulating the mathematical basis of electromagnetic theory.
The second phase of advancement in electric theory came with the rise of particle physics and the development of quantum theory. This elucidated the actual mechanisms and causes of electricity, magnetism, and atomic phenomena. The original work on mathematical formalism for electricity has become the basis of quantum theory, relativity (Einstein won his Nobel Prize for work on the photovoltaic effect) and lead to recent developments leading toward a Theory Of Everything.
But all this theoretical work would be for naught were it not for the work of Thomas Edison in making electricity the most commonly used physical theory in the world today. And this huge use of electricity would not have happened except for the development of the humble incandescent light bulb. The whole electricity infrastructure underlying industrial society is a direct result of wanting to use and enjoy the light bulb.
The history of the development of industrial infrastructure is easily found by reading from Wikipedia, but the impetus and impelling factor in extending electric power to everywhere in the developed world is that folks want light.
The light bulb, since its invention, rapidly settled into its most common form: the incandescent tungsten filament in a glass enclosure. It stayed that way for decades without much fundamental change in the technology. As high tech developed, the original low technology was always present right alongside. Can you imagine them building the Large Hadron Collider without having light bulbs around to illuminated to construction and operation?
Even now, you are reading this blog (in all probability) somewhere where there are light bulbs providing illumination. Most likely, the basic technology behind the light bulb is providing the screen on which these words are being displayed.
But now the simple incandescent light bulb is in danger of extinction. This is because the basic incandescent process is too inefficient, converting only about 9 percent of the power consumed into desired light. the rest of the power is consumed in resistance to current flow and the production of waste heat.
The short-term successor to the incandescent bulb is the fluorescent bulb. However, it has to be short term for a variety of reasons. The chemicals involved in the fluorescent effect are toxic and will have long-term affects on the environment if they are not quickly replaced with less adverse alternatives. (It is worth noting that the fluorescent technology still uses heat producing filaments and plasma production in generating light.)
The longer term replacement is, it seems, the Light Emitting Diode (LED) technology, which efficiently produces photons with very little waste heat. The main disadvantage of LED technology is that current means of production involve low efficiency methods and more toxic chemicals. There are changes in the production technology coming along that may sufficiently mitigate these environmentally-unfriendly affects.
However, if the environmental disadvantages cannot be overcome, the earth may be better served by returning to the incandescent filament. This is maligned as a more primitive situation, but be aware that the emotionally loaded word "primitive" is used deliberately to discourage such a development.
I'm certainly committed to progress, but not at the expense of the survivability of the human species and the planet. Those who are pushing the fluorescent bulbs, and the LEDs don't seem to be thinking far enough ahead to see that these technologies may be ultimately non-sustainable. We must place our safety and survival ahead of convenience and progress simply for the sake of change.
In this position, I part ways with the ideologies of the left-wing and right-wing paradigm. I risk getting labeled as a "crazy environmentalist" and being dismissed as a "fringe" ideologue. However, the "Principle of Enlightened Self-Interest" is, so far, the only means I have found to maximize and identify the "best" results for all concerned. Until everyone actually realizes this, the earth and all its life will remain at risk. It takes quite a bit of self-discipline to keep this methodology in focus, and I often fail; however, it is truly worth the effort.
So, honor the simple light bulb and realize that we may not have seen its demise after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment