The Transition from Circular and U-Shaped Fluorescent Tubes: Replacement Technologies and Environmental Implications

1. Introduction to Circular and U-Shaped Fluorescent Tubes

Circular and U-shaped fluorescent tubes have been widely used and adopted in various commercial and residential applications. The illumination they produce is the result of a process known as phosphorescence, in which certain energy is provided to the atoms of the tube's coating, enabling the material to absorb the energy and emit a specific wavelength of light. The traditional technology behind these lights makes them inherently wasteful, with a significant percentage of the energy allocated to them being lost as heat. The heat loss is accumulated in luminous materials and the electrical components of the light, making touching these lights dangerous with bare hands. Early models of circular lights date back to 1939. Circular and U-shaped tubes are primarily made of phosphors that line the inside and outside of the glass tube. Manufacturers can also add a small amount of mercury to the gas within the tube to create vapor, which further aids in the ionization and flow of electrons.

Most lights are made of glass manufactured from silica sand, soda ash, and lime. The light tube itself can be filled with either argon or krypton, rare non-hazardous gases that create a highly accurate color rendering. The phosphors used are compounds that exhibit fluorescence. When a UV photon strikes a phosphor atom, a photoelectron must be ejected, which leaves behind a hole in the valence band, eventually filling it and then emitting a higher frequency photon. These lights consume 22 watts of power and last for 12,000 hours, making this a 55 lumens per watt bulb. Residential variants also exist and consume approximately 25 watts, giving out a similar 55 lumens per watt efficiency. They are primarily used like other lights for general and ambient lighting. The preferred technologies for circular and U-shaped tubes have been increasingly used in many of their applications in recent times.

2. Reasons for Phasing Out and Environmental Concerns

The manufacture, usage, and disposal of lamps expose some concerns related to the environment. In the case of fluorescent tubes, for example, the overall electricity and chemicals needed for their production, their energy inefficiency, the associated maintenance costs, the fact that they are a potential reason for light pollution, and in some cases, a reason for ionizing radiation can provide the basis for some concerns. Apart from ionizing radiation, we shall here explore in detail the disadvantages of traditional fluorescent tube technologies.

No matter how well manufactured, all lamps eventually stop functioning, and this means that they have to be discarded. Lamps and lamp components require special procedures for disposal or recycling. Recycling or disposal must prevent them from presenting a potential environmental hazard. Regulations are all gradually having an impact to make manufacturers more aware of the responsibilities and possible benefits of supplying safe, easy-to-dispose-of, and ideally recyclable products.

It is no surprise, therefore, that technologies are emerging now and will undoubtedly continue to appear that replace traditional lighting components with cleaner alternatives. The aforementioned regulations have certainly helped in driving the development of alternative lighting sources by promoting a less disposable, more durable lighting culture. Manufacturers and material developers globally are developing alternatives to the traditional lighting components, and energy-efficient lighting companies are now more focused on deploying lighting resources in everyday applications, stressing integrated alternatives to the well-established and in some cases "old" technologies.

3. Alternative Lighting Technologies as Replacements

The first possible replacement for traditional fluorescent lamps is the LED (Light Emitting Diodes). Other possibilities include the use of OLEDs (Organic Light Emitting Diodes) and more advanced halogen lamps. The description of energy efficiency, lifetime, and price for a significant share of commonly used electric lamps can be found in a wide range of other sources. However, it is well known and not the subject of this paper which technologies should replace traditional lighting technologies. The following sections will analyze in more detail the current offerings of these and other lighting technologies, which are likely to be the only choices left in the near future. Thanks to their rapidly increasing performance, LEDs can be considered the most probable substitute for lamps based on the main designs of CE, and therefore this paper will focus on this replacement.

In general, all these alternative technologies (LED, OLED, and halogen) present a higher luminous flux per unit of power than the expected performance of older technologies. This means that the time near the L sign, which is on the time axis of figure 2, for introducing these lights into the market is approaching. Rather than an asset, the great efficiency of these lighting solutions in the technology market, since they are still to be considered an overview from the demand side, is known at the moment. In fact, previous studies on electric lamps overlook the expected development and diffusion of alternative lighting technologies because the prospective market share they would cover should not be bigger than 1/4 of the total new lighting technologies.

4. Comparative Analysis of Replacement Technologies

Although there are several technological solutions for luminous tubes, this paper opts to study four specific cases, namely: T5 fluorescent tubes, LED passive substitutive tubes, and LED renovators in the form of tubes and slender lamps. What follows is a critical comparative analysis through the application of the following criteria: cost of tubes and their renovation, consumption of electric energy, environmental footprint, compatibility with present infrastructure, optimal conditions of use, conditions of use to which the tubes can succumb, appearance, and, as a last consideration, an aesthetic comparative analysis of the illuminating modes created by the four sets of illuminating tubes. Tube property and the efficiency of LED-based lighting technology are verified by the case study of the Renca fire brigade, which reveals that in two years significant savings are achieved.

It is common to check new technologies through their effects, such as functionality, energy consumption, and environmental credentials. However, if technology is updated, it is important to check its acceptance in society, which is affected by past perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. Conventional lights are a main part of families, comprising a large part of family electricity use. The usual replacement technologies available for tube lights include T5 fluorescent tubes, LED passive substitutive tubes, and LED renovators in the form of tubes and slender lamps. When selecting a renovation technology, it is important to take into account the following aspects: (a) the appearance aspects, such as illuminating mode; (b) the consumption of electricity; (c) the replacement conditions; (d) environmental credentials; (e) and the cost – in this case, we must take into account an initial cost, but in a similar way, we must measure all technology against energy tariffs. Considerations related to initial purchase cost and price over time for all options are important.

5. Environmental Impacts and Sustainability Considerations

Market-led transitions to more sustainable lighting are, in general, good news for the environment. In the case of T12 and T22 lamps, there is the added bonus of a reduction in the amount of hazardous material that would otherwise need careful disposal. Opting for more durable, efficient, and sustainable solutions could save resources over a 600-hour design life. But over the lifetime of typical fluorescent lamps, electronic lighting and LED options might necessitate an increase in resource demand and their environmental impacts with earlier replacements, more complex manufacturing and processing requirements, and energy used in operating them. Despite the misleading information in the realms of social media, LED's environmental impacts are likely to be lower than those for converting typical electrical power requirements to operate gas-discharge lamps.

Lifecycle assessments can help compare products in terms of their carbon footprint and the impacts of the materials used in making them. Across the full lifecycle, the manufacture of fluorescent tubes with their construction of glass, aluminum, and phosphor typically dominates lifetime carbon impacts compared to the embodiment of electronic waste. For a 600-hour lifetime, the latter remains substantial, estimating around 2.1 kgCO2e for T5 lamps and 41.4 kgCO2e for T8 lamps, which corresponds to 2.0 km motor car emissions on a sealed road. T8 lamps have similar material lifetime impacts as T5 lamps due to their differences in wavelength. At an operational level, typical incandescent and halogen torch globe lifetime emissions are much lower at approximately 0.1 and 0.3 kgCO2e, respectively.

While the research on their environmental impact is limited, overarching good practice in consumer decision-making may alleviate the possible impacts of these technologies. The move towards more sustainable lighting displays a broad trend towards consumer preference for environmental sustainability over lower initial prices. Future manufacturers are likely to incorporate more sustainable lighting practices, and regulatory requirements could mean that these newer lighting technologies may decrease the impact effectiveness of their counterparts even further. Accounting for tangible energy and carbon costs is only a small part of the sustainability dilemma. Whether a 600-hour T12 and T22 gas-discharge lamp or a modern LED, making a sound purchase decision by selecting products that follow the principles of sustainability not only saves valuable and limited resources but also significantly benefits the environment.