Green-Eco-Friendly
A little over a month ago, a ban on the sale and import of high-wattage frosted incandescent bulbs in the European Union began. The ban was initiated by the E.U. with the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by the year 2020. The commonly-used clear 60-watt bulb will still be available until at least September 2011, and clear 40-watt bulbs until 2012. The promotion of energy-efficient lighting is just part of a wider strategy by the European Commission (EC) that includes more efficient appliances, consumer electronics and small engines.
Enforcement of these rules will be on the shoulders of individual EU national governments. So the Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer, for example, while initially announcing support for a phase-out of incandescent light bulbs (which I’ll call IBs) by 2011, then reversed her opinion. She now supports the manufacturers’ call for a longer phase-out to last until 2019. (Cramer is a former employee of Philips, the electronic giant that is on the vanguard of manufacturing OLEDs, which we blogged about last week.)
The United States is planning on phasing out IBs, but not until 2012, and is presumably looking at the EU as a testing ground. Switching to CFLs can save homeowners upwards of $50 over the life of the bulb and is usually expected to pay for itself in energy savings in less than 6 months, while the bulbs themselves last 10 times as long as IBs. And the benefits to the environment? One could say, with a rhetorical flourish, that they are “incalculable.” But they are indeed calculable: CFLs require 20% of the energy that IBs do.
At the same time, however, the EC is recommending that consumers use, in addition to CFLs, halogen bulbs, which are only slightly more efficient than IBs, since they are, after all, just another type of IB. And many people claim that governments are ignoring the glaring disadvantages of CFLs in their forced phase-out of IBs. The most common objection is that, since CFLs contain mercury, they endanger the health of individuals when they break in the home, and will endanger public health in the future as they arrive by the millions in landfills, as the technology for dealing with the mercury in spent CFLs is lagging behind their use.
Consumer objections also include: most CFLs do not work with dimmer switches; they are available in only a few sizes; some CFLs emit a bluish light; some complain of headaches while working or reading under them; and they cannot be used in recessed lighting or enclosed globes. And some object that the ban will hurt a huge part of the manufacturing and retail sector that depends on IBs, as well as creating a situation where government is unfairly influencing competition and the market.
Of course we at Elemental could suggest that you bypass the debate, and CFLs, entirely by switching to LED lights. They are non-toxic, they last 5 times as long as fluorescent lighting and are twice as energy-efficient. They are available in many colors, including different shades of white, and are more compact and fit into more places than either IBs or CFLs. Many of our LED fixtures are dimmable, several are made for recessed lighting, and several are even waterproof.
Although LEDs may currently be the best solution in a practical sense, we’d like to now what our customers and readers think about the incandescent ban as an idea. Is it fair to manipulate the market for the public good? Is lighting technology advanced enough to deal with this change? Does the current competition between IBs and CFLs resemble that of the Edison light bulb versus the gas lantern? How would you react if IBs were being banned in favor of LEDs, which have been used commercially and civically since the 1970s, but are still relatively new as household fixtures? We’d like to hear your thoughts; please leave a comment below!
5 Responses
Leave a Reply
Electric Bik.e
Volkswagen has done it again, but this time it's not the safest car on the road, it's an electric scooter, called the Bik.e. The scooter is designed to fold up... Read our blog
The ban on light bulbs is not just wrong because CFLs have disadvantages and not just wrong for freedom reasons,
it’s even wrong with the energy and emission arguments used to defend it,
including some you mention…
It may sound good to “only allow efficient products”.
Unfortunately, inefficient products may be popular for many other reasons, relating to
performance, appearance, construction, as well as cost, and sometimes the overall savings
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc2x onwards
Put it this way with the light bulbs:
Americans (like Europeans) choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 8 to 9 times out of 10 (light industry data 2008).
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings – no point in banning an impopular product = no “savings”!
If new LED lights that you mention – or more efficient incandescents etc – are good,
people will buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio tubes were banned… they were bought less anyway.
The need to save energy?
Advice is good and welcome, but bans are another matter…
ordinary citizens -not politicians – pay for energy, its production, and how they wish to use it.
There is no energy shortage – on the contrary, more and more renewable sources are being developed -
and if there was an energy shortage of the finite oil-coal-gas fuels,
then
1 renewable energy becomes more attractive price-wise
2 the fuel price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products – no need to legislate for it.
Any government worried about say oil use can simply tax it
(and imported oil is not used in electricity generation).
Supposed savings don’t hold up anyway,
for many reasons:
http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x onwards
= comparative brightness, lifespans, power factors, lifecycles, heat factor etc with referenced research
About electricity bills:
If electricity use does fall, the power companies have to put up prices to cover their overheads, maintenance costs, wage bills etc (using less fuel doesn’t compensate much in overall costs).
As with other consumption, those who use less tend to pay more per unit used (and heavy users get discounts).
Emissions?
Does a light bulb give out any gases?
Power stations might not either:
Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
Low emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.
Direct ways to deal with emissions (for all else they contain too, whatever about CO2),
with a focus on transport and electricity:
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x
The Taxation alternative
Taxation is just another unjustified way of targeting light bulbs – but might be a compromise solution:
A ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.
We are not talking about banning lead paint here.
This is simply a ban to supposedly reduce electricity consumption.
For those who favor bans, or who want to act quickly in targeting electricity consumption as well as production and distribution,
taxation to reduce any such consumption would therefore make more sense, governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.
A few dollars tax that reduces the current sales (USA like the EU 2 billion sales per annum, UK 250-300 million pa)
raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.
It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.
When sufficent low emission electricity delivery is in place, the ban can be lifted
http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html
But the real deal is simply to supply energy as needed with whatever emisssion criteria is needed,
and let consumers use and pay for what they want, in their own homes.
In some cases I do think it’s fair to manipulate the market for the common good…but I’m also in favor of raising gas prices so people will drive less and think about fuel efficiency. I know some would say that that’s too much “government involvement,” but with the planet and economy in the state they’re in, I’m OK with a little regulation, a little enforced curtailing of consumption. I mean, we’ve consumed enough as a culture, haven’t we? With population rising exponentially, we’ve gotta figure out a way for all of these people to live on this planet sustainably. Can’t we all learn to sacrifice just a little?
Nice post…interesting topic!
Thank you for the useful thoughts!! Still one more superb post, which is the key reason why My spouse and I return for your wordpress bog generally…
Hey I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed reading your blog. You have good views, Keep up the good informative info
What do you think about adding some more images? I’m not trying to offend anyone, text is really great. Just as I know visitors acquire info much more efficient when there are certain helpful pics.
Nency Nixon