Lighting the way to the future
August 29, 2009
(54 votes, average: 1.46 out of 5)
Loading ...
Great ideas are sometimes slow to catch on. British Parliament was so alarmed by early attempts to create self-propelling vehicles that in 1865 it passed the Red Flag Act, requiring all “road locomotives” to have someone walk in front of them carrying a red flag. When Alexander Graham Bell, who created the first practical telephone, tried to sell the patent of his invention to Western Union, its president refused saying it was only a toy. These are understandable reactions as people are naturally resistant to change and more comfortable with what they already familiar with.
The European Commission is encountering comparable reservations as it is nudging Europe towards a new era of lighting. Starting this month with a phasing-out of 100W incandescent bulbs and above, the European Union is gradually removing all wasteful lighting equipment from the European market. By 2020 this will save enough energy to power 11 million households each year while saving every family more than €50 on their electricity bill. Although this move has been welcome by many, some consumers are still uncomfortable with the idea of giving up their familiar light bulbs in favour of modern and more efficient alternatives. However, although the products might be different, they offer the same advantages and so much more.
People can, for example, opt to use transparent improved halogen bulbs, which provides exactly the same type and quality of light as incandescent bulbs. They also come in the same shapes and appearances, and give a full light output as soon as they are switched on.
Another option would be compact fluorescent lamps (CFL). Today’s CFL can produce just as much light as traditional light bulbs. Although there have been low quality CFL that did not reach their normal life time, the new EU legislation introduces requirements on lifetime so that lamps last as long as stated on the package. Also this should not be affected by the CFL being switched on and off for every hour of operation. Whereas incandescent light bulbs can only produce warm light, CFL can offer both cool or warm light giving people the option of choosing the effect they want for any given environment.
Also interesting are light emitting diodes (LEDs). They are as efficient as CFL, but do not contain mercury and last even longer. Already they offer replacements for both clear and frosted light bulbs and are likely to become alternatives to the full range of lamps in the near future.
This legislation has been a long time in the making. We extensively consulted consumer organisations and the industry, while making use of the latest scientific research to consider all the factors involved. One such issue was CFL’s mercury content. We discovered that using more CFL would actually lead to fewer mercury emissions. As CFL consume less energy and last so much longer, less mercury is needed to generate electricity. The risk of mercury escaping was also something to consider. However, lamps containing mercury have already been used without any major problems in most office and public buildings for the last 50 years. Even if the mercury were to be released due to an accident, the amount would be five milligrammes at most, which would be below European levels for hazardous materials. People will also be able to consult the packaging or websites for information on the safest way to get rid of the mercury.
Families will start saving money as soon as they switch on their first CFL. The average CFL will save each household about €60 compared to using outdated incandescent light bulbs.
The phasing out of inefficient lighting will act as a catalyst for further innovation, while at the same time bringing down the cost of modern lighting equipment such as CFL and transparent improved halogen bulbs. This means consumers will have a wider choice of types of lighting than ever before. Instead of being stuck with one type light produced by old-fashioned light bulbs, they can select the product that suits the atmosphere and the function they are looking for. Consumers will be able to opt for warm light or cold light, for intimate lighting or flood lighting - whatever tickles their fancy.
To help everyone with the transition, the Commission will be launching a new website in 22 languages soon to explain all the changes.
Much like the car and the telephone caught on with everyone, I have no doubt that once Europeans start using the modern alternatives to the inefficient light bulbs, they will start to enjoy the advantages they have to offer.
Print This Post
Email This Post
RSS comments feed on this entry
August 29th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
But why are you only reacting publicly by now if the advantages are so obvious? If the change is indeed needed, and indeed does not have the negative effects proclaimed by the adversaries, why not explaining it to the public much earlier - and reacting now on your blog, some three days before the new legislation will enter into force?
August 30th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Why can’t you understand that citisens of Europe don’t want to be forced into your way of thinking.
Global warming is a lie and the only thing we should do is to get rid of greenpeace and other inviromental organizations pushing this idea.
Who do you think you are to force us to do enything?
Some kind of elite rulling class? You better learn to listen to the citisens rather than small group of idiots from greenpeace.
August 31st, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Das ist reiner Populismus mit dem man die ‘dumme’ Bevölkerung zufriedenstellen will. Der Ersatz für die gute alte Glühbirne ist extrem ungesund. Ducrh das Quecksilber gehören die Energiesparlampen nicht nur in den Sondermüll, sondern sogar verboten. Und das Licht dieser Lampen ist auf Dauer ebenfalls ungesund, da es zu kalt ist.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Thank you for this open communication with citizens.
I have extensively covered why it is wrong to ban light bulbs -
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1x onwards
While I agree with the overall energy and emission objectives, I feel that such problems can and should be dealt with directly,rather than banning what people want to use, which just leads to their alienation from climate change or other policies.
Overall savings will be seen to be marginal anyway.
I may complete a point by point comment to this posting later, otherwise the supplied links will give further information.
To begin with:
All lights are different with different advantages
Alternative lights can hardly be “different with the same advantages” as you say - or there would be no reason for people to buy ordinary light bulbs.
Ordinary light bulbs have a pleasing simple appearance, are versatile with dimmers and sensors, are quick to come on in the cold, and are easy to make bright, including in small sizes, and have a warm broad spectrum light quality.
Halogen lights, while related to ordinary lights, retain several differences, in their appearance, light spectrum output, cost, and other factors as explained on the site.
The particular error of banning 100W+ ordinary bulbs is that bright CFLs or LEDs are comparatively difficult and expensive to make,
and the high wattage heat effect is not necessarily wasted (see below).
Banning frosted lights smacks of particularly unwarranted EU pettiness, for any marginal savings involved.
Clear lights (including halogens) have a strong glare - hence the overwhelming popularity of frosted lights for ceiling use.
CFL and mercury
Maine state USA testing has confirmed problems with CFL breakages and mercury release, also confirming and enhancing US government EPA recommendations More: http://www.ceolas.net/#li19x
Mercury release from coal power emissions is no excuse - they will decrease markedly anyway as planned in EU, USA and Canada given recent new injection and photochemical filtering technology. More: http://ceolas.net/#li198x
Why do you officials in the EU applaud how coal power mercury emissions will markedly decrease in the next few years, at the same time as you extrapolate old data and say that therefore ”1.5 million tons will be saved by 2020″ by banning light bulbs?
CFL savings
— Lifespan is lab tested in 3 hour cycles. That does not correspond to real life usage and numerous tests have shown real life
type on-off switching reducing lifespan. Leaving lights on of course also uses up energy, as does the switch-on power surge with CFLs More: http://ceolas.net/#li15so
Also, CFLs get dimmer with age, effectively reducing lifespan
More on brightness and “why you can’t see anything” using CFLs; http://ceolas.net/#li15rbx
– Power factor: Few people know that CFLs typically have a power factor of 0.5 - that means that power stations use up twice as much power than what the CFL rating shows. This has to do with current and voltage phase differences set up when CFLs are used.
Although consumers do not see this on their meters, they will of course have to pay for it on their bills.
This is explained with official links including to US Dept of Energy here: http://ceolas.net/#li15eux
– Heat benefit from using ordinary incandescent light bulbs
http://ceolas.net/#li6x
Room heat substantially rises to the ceiling (convection) and spreads downwards from there.
Another half of more of supposed switch savings are negated in temperate climates, as shown via the above link with numerous research references.
The energy saving slice of pie gets smaller and smaller, also with all other factors mentioned.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Correction of my previous comment:
Regarding the light bulb ban proposal pathway (as mentioned near the end):
it went of course to the EU parliament “environment committee“, rather than “environment commission”.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Who elected you exactly? And who are you to tell us what lightbulbs we can and can’t use?
September 1st, 2009 at 10:19 am
To: Dr Peter Thornes, Dublin, Ireland
Dear Dr Thornes,
Basically you don’t deserve more energy than you can produce by physical force of your body.
God bless you!
September 1st, 2009 at 2:18 pm
To: Julien Frisch
Dear blogger,
The case, you are discussing concerns the price of your life.
Take an example: How many days before to change prices up the sellers are informing you?
September 1st, 2009 at 2:19 pm
FYI: Letter to the EU Energy Commissioner.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Good step in the right direction. Saving energy is the way to go and the best option for lighting all over the world are the great possibilities of LED-lighting or even OLED-lighting.
http://tinyurl.com/d6xrkp
September 1st, 2009 at 3:59 pm
If energy use does fall with light bulb and other proposed efficiency bans and electricity companies make less money,
people’s electricity bills will have to go up to compensate
Energy regulators can hardly deny any such cost covering exercise…
September 1st, 2009 at 4:40 pm
I’ve long used CFLs in most fittings, but recently had a low-ceiling loft-coversion performed, fitted with halogen downlighters. Normally a 100W or equivalent bulb would have been sufficient, but this installation requred 11x 50W downlighters - that’s 550W of lighting! Even replacing these with 8W mini CFLs, which are hard to source, this is still 88W of lighting.
September 2nd, 2009 at 7:30 am
To Peter Thornes:
Dear Peter,
Thank you!
This is much more realistic point of view.
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:19 am
Wich is the European Directive that wants to finish with the 100 kw light bulb?
Thanks.
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:48 am
Sheer lunacy!
I offer you more choice by reducing your choice!
Makes sense in a political kind of way.
People don’t WANT CFLs or they’d buy them, they’re virtually GIVING them away in LIDL!
I can get away with them, many people can’t!
DaveE.
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Good people of Europe: Embrace the efficient use of energy.
Do not let the fact that change is being imposed on create such a negative response.
Surely you cannot be supporting the increasing consumption of energy.
Surely you know that new technologies are often more expensive until they reach a certain mass production.
When will we really face the challenge of reducing our overall energy consumption?
September 4th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Dear Mr. Commissioner,
as a citizen of former communist nation, the Czech Republic, which lived for 40 years under the dictatorship from Moscow and COMECON, I must say I am very disappointed by the EU, namely its Commission, for taking such antidemocratic measures. The Commission is an unelected board and it is ridiculous it can affect so much everyday lives of 500 milions people, like in this case forbidding the light bulb. Since there are no safety nor health risks at stake, there is no valid reason whatsoever to forbid people to use it. What (and under what excuse) is going to be forbidden next, if I can ask? Partially due to your contribution we have lost another bit of our freedom we had striven for for a long time.
Please, shine using whatever you feel like in your own house, but do not tell the others, what they are supposed to do with the electricity bought from their own money.
Matous Ringel
September 4th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
This ban is clearly one of the worst decisions ever made in the European Union. It negates completely the basic concept that the citizen has the right to choose provided that he/she pays for his choice. Why on Earth my choice is being limited to light bulbs chosen for me by some politicians? The “energy efficiency” argument is moot, since with this reasoning almost every “not necessary” activity should be banned. Today, in the environments requiring the maximum light output per watt (offices, streets) the use of fluorescent lights is widespread, while incandescent bulbs are used in homes, for lights that should provide the maximum quality of illumination (in the free opinion of the person buying the lamp and paying for the energy).
The incandescent light bulb is one of the least polluting technologies ever made, and is clearly the least polluting lighting technology of all. So the problem cannot be the light bulb itself. With a little reasoning, if the problem is energy consumption, it would have much better, in a liberal country, to impose higher taxes on energy, so at least I could have chosen for example to keep using light bulbs if I liked it and save on TV energy consumption, or wash my clothes by hand and so on. If the matter is to reduce CO2 emission, as it seems from all the propaganda communication, the correct political decision in a liberal country should have been to tax more the CO2-emitting electrical energy. In fact, I could even use my solar cells to power a light bulb, without releasing a single particle of CO2 in the atmosphere in the process, and this ban forbids me of even doing that, which is clearly against my freedom of doing anything that cannot hurt in any way other citizens.
I am very concerned about the state of liberty in this country and Europe since political decisions that restrict unnecessarily and unethically the liberty of citizens are taken so lightly and with so much confidence that they are not only correct from an utilitarian point of view but rather assurge to a “morally correct” status, since some politician has decided that “energy saving” (apart from any pollution consideration) must be imposed on citizens.
For the motives exposed above, I think, and I am confident that any liberal thinker should agree, that this ban is wrong under every possible point of view, except if you agree that the state should choose for its citizens (or maybe favor the lamp builders at expense of citizens by forcing you to buy an expensive LED light also for lighting your closet).
Regards,
Filippo Riccio
September 4th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I have also to add that comparing the resistance to adopting a new technology from the people (the telephone example of ‘800) to the resistance to a law forbidding the use of an old technology (the light bulb) is very unfair, since the proponent of cars never had to forbid the use of horses (you can use horses even today on the majority of roads), and, guess what? You can continue to use telegrams, paper letters and even send pigeons away with messages instead of the telephone if you like. These technologies were adopted by the people and not under constriction by law, and you are free even after 100 years to use them or not.
Yes, I am confident, like you, that once Europeans are forced into using the modern alternatives to the under your criteria inefficient light bulbs, they will have to start to enjoy the advantages they in your opinion have to offer. What else could they do?
But this is not the way a free country should make its laws.
September 4th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Sir,
your comparison from the beginning of your text simply does not work. In both historical cases it were officials who were wrong and the market that evaluated the inventions as useful.
You can find resemblance in the case of bulbs: It is the market that evaluates the bulbs as still useful and officials who deny it.
But case for other light sources is totally different: Officials promote something, what still did not persuade the market, by forcing people to buy it.
So you are not promoting great ideas as you dare to profess, but simply thieving people´s freedom.
Edison´s bulb did not need ban of candles and petroleum lamps to push them to the market rim (but remained available for people who find them useful).
You as well as me come from former communist country. It were communists who thought that they are promoting great idea which people just do not catch quickly enough. Can you still remember what the end was?
Best regards
Drahomir Otahalik
CZ
September 4th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
In the intrests of health and safety I suggest you read all of the follow :-
http://www.thebriefingroom.com/archives/2008/08/mercury_in_cfls.html
and then ban cfls as outright dangerous
September 4th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Dear Commissioner et all,
Re CFL” ” Even if the mercury were to be released due to an accident, the amount would be five milligrammes at most, which would be below European levels for hazardous materials.”
Although I am very ,much in favour of politics forcing a new trend that will lead to reduced energy use I wonder about the statement of low quantity mercury emissions, in fact mercury is a heavy metal that is not broken down in nature and will accumulate in organisms in the food chain.
As such the long term effects can be counter effective for living species.
May I ask what mitigation strategy is considered as part of the strategy to promote CFL technology? For instance is a closed loop recycling program on the agenda including financial incentive to collect wastefull bulbs?
Thank you for your interest,
CH
September 5th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
any form of government/leader would be better than the eu: stalin, lenin, hitler, taliban, martian, fluffy white dice, coca cola cans, maggots
September 5th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Having failed (or not bothered trying) to persuade the public of the merits of the argument, you simply force the change upon them without their consent. That is undemocratic and disrespectful. Please give us back our freedom.
September 5th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
if you actually want to reduce energy consumption why do you not order the UK to not go ahead and switch off the analog transmission services; given that the digital equivalents consume more power?
in addition, the UK switching over to digital means that numerous electrical items will have to be scrapped.
September 5th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
CFLs may save electricity but THEY WILL NOT SAVE ENERGY. All Winter, while the bulbs are lit they are converting 80% of their energy into heat and 20% into light. Now we are to use CFLs, they are not producing heat - so the central heating system will work a little harder to compensate. Electrivity use goes down, gas use goes up. And now, then the used bulbs will go to landfill, we are polluting the water supply with mercury. Welcome to the weird and wonderful world of green politics.
September 6th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
None of your arguments matter. If the advantages were real you wouldn’t have to resort to violence to change people’s behaviour. Leave us alone.
September 7th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Let’s face it, the bureaucrats have been got at by the lightbulb manufacturers.
September 8th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Dear friends,
Citizens of the EU,
Exposing as front scenery the ecological and somehow doubtful economical benefits, the EU Commission is on the way to impose one of the most scandalous decisions for the last few years. The opponents of the decision already pointed out that the prize of the new energy saving lamps CFL is some 15 up to 25 times higher than the normal ones. That will lead to financial predicaments in some households especially in the new EU members like Bulgaria and Romania. It is also important to mention the high content of mercury in CFL and that the light produced by them is sometimes by 40 percent weaker than that of the ordinary ones. And this with no doubt will cost poor eyesight for million citizens and will threaten their health. The LED-s are for sure of higher quality, but they are even more expensive and a certain period of time must pass before they can be accessible for the common user.
The right of free choice is one of the fundament which determines the progress of the European economics and the European society. It’s disturbing that this right is practically taken away. This decision of the EU Commission concerns and tries to settle not only the public relations between the citizens of EU, but violates the right of free choice, and interferes directly into the private area of each citizen, the private area of his home. A decision like that provokes suspicions about hidden economical interests, and shows that in the presence of the suitable lobby it is possible to carry a bill at the highest level in EU.
That’s why don’t allow the pace of everyday life to dull you citizen-consciousness. It’s Europe and you voice does matter! Those who want to express their position, please write to the European Consumer Centers in the different countries, or to other European institutions.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I suppose the sovereignty of the the UK is meaningless but never mind.
We have hoarded enough to say safely say our supply is now lifetime.
I don’t like like the idea of some special group telling me how to light the house. And btw … I am PROUD to be a carbon user and waster. The bigger the footprint I can leave, the better I feel.
And oh yes. There has already been a loophole found around this dumb idea.
September 9th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
More on Taxation as an alternative to a Ban on Light Bulbs
For reasons already laid out above and on http://www.ceolas.net/#li1x onwards,
there is no need to target ordinary light bulbs.
However, given the pro-ban arguments,
it is very strange that the taxation alternative was not considered by European governments,
and indeed governments elsewhere, at a time when governments say they lack finance.
After all:
The ban on ordinary light bulbs is an extraordinary consumer ban,
being on a product that is safe to use.
We are not talking about banning lead paint here.
(Note the consumer legislation irony,
forcibly replacing a cheap, simple, safe, popular and easily bright product,
with an expensive, complex, mercury-releasing, unpopular and more difficultly bright product as the only realistic alternative).
CO2 gas?
Light bulbs don’t give out any gases - power stations do.
Cars, unlike light bulbs, also give out CO2 emissions:
But inefficient combustion engine cars are taxed for CO2 emissions, not banned because of them.
So what is this all about?
This is simply a ban to reduce electricity consumption.
As such, like taxes reducing consumption of cigarettes, alcohol and “carbon tax” on petrol/gasolene,
clearly the same could be done with light bulbs
(ignoring here that supposed energy savings don’t hold up: http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x onwards)
Ordinary light bulbs are surely a taxman’s wet dream:
The light bulbs are
CHEAP - so can absorb much tax, also since the main “energy saving” CFL and other alternatives are so much more expensive
UBIQUITOUS (4 billion in each of EU and USA)
SHORT-LASTING in relative terms (1000 hours, resulting in around 2 billion annual sales of the ordinary bulbs, in each of EU and
USA jurisdictions, based on European Commission and lighting industry data 2007-8 )
POPULAR (around 9 out of 10 lights bought in EU and USA)
Multiple billion euro and dollar revenues can therefore be raised for future government use:
So perhaps in the continuing EU phase out - which has one or more planned reviews - this might be considered.
Certainly, taxation is not an EU decision - but member states can clearly nevertheless decide to take that
alternative path forward.
The money obtained can be used for projects of greater value in lowering energy use and emissions,
than any remaining light bulb use raises energy use and emissions.
Examples: Renewable energy projects and home energy schemes involving insulation measures and the like.
Taxation advantages:
It is easy to adjust for the balance of government income/sales reduction desired,
noting that a large tax with low sales still generates significant income.
It is, unlike bans, easy to adapt to changing markets and products,
and can be lifted when no longer needed
(i.e. when sufficient low emission electricity is being provided).
Also, it can if desired be more revenue neutral:
that is, lowering the sales taxes on efficient products, in this case making “energy saving” CFLs and LED lamps cheaper to buy.
Those who like bans, should of course remember that a large tax equates to a ban.
As for taxes being unpopular:
Unlike with other taxes, here it is clearly presented as a choice to not having a product at all.
Nobody is forcing anyone to still buy the old light bulbs!
More about the light bulb taxation alternative:
http://ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html
As said, taxation is itself not really justified,
for similar reasons to bans, and is for example unfair on low emission households.
However, for pro-ban politicians, it is in their interest to work with
- not against - the people and what they want to use,
remembering the future cooperation that will be needed in any Climate Change agenda.
September 10th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Mr Piebalgs is conspicuous by his absence from responding to the points made in these comments. At the very least, would he care to explain why banning 100W incandescent lightbulbs was thought most appropriate over all of the other possibilities for encouraging take-up of alternative light sources?
September 10th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Why did we fight two world wars for freedom, when freedom of choice is continually being taken away by the EU and autocrocratic decisions made without consultation with the populations in general?
When one of the so called energy light bulbs failed in my house and filled the place with noxious poisonous fumes which we could not get rid of for two hours, even with all doors and windows open - I was extremely worried about my family’s health - particularly as one of my children was recovering from a bone marrow transplant. I had no idea at the time mercury was involved or just how dangerous these new bulbs are! (although the fumes were a fairly good indication that they are not exactly healthy or environmentally safe - unlike the old ones)
For some years I have used my common sense to fit either the normal bulbs, or the energy saving light bulbs, in whatever area is suitable for each. I have yet to find an energy saving light bulb I can read with without getting a headache or eye strain - this does not happen with the old fashioned light bulbs. Also the new energy efficient bulbs cast a gloom about the place as though we have gone back in time when all people had were candles! Halogen lights do not always fit the bill either and I was told by an electrician they use more electricity and are more expensive to use than the old bulbs. I also wish I could say I have noticed using the new energy saving light bulbs have made a difference to the electricity bill over the years - but this is not so (even allowing for the rise in electricity prices generally)
At the end of the day, what gives one person or one organisation the right to dictate to the masses when we have been given no choice, and no chance to have our say in a referendum?
I am sure scientists will find all sorts of ways to try to justify their thoughts and actions, but we - the general public - have a right to make up our minds by using our senses - including common sense.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Why a Light Bulb Ban in North Europe/Alpine countries is particularly wrong, with USA + Canada comparisons
http://ceolas.net/#li11x
There is a great irony that ban favouring politicians in say the EU and North America tend to come from low emission and cool/temperate climate states (North/Central Europe, coastal and northern USA, most Canadian states) - a great irony because their populations are particularly hit by the light bulb ban.
A ban in these locations is particularly wrong because:
1. They already use energy sources with low emissions (usually nuclear/hydropower):
In the EU, think, for example, of Sweden (hydropower mainly) or France (nuclear mainly) where virtually all households already have emission-free electricity. In Finland, Austria, Latvia and Lithuania most households have little or no electricity emission.
Likewise,think of Canadian states like hydropower-rich British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec, or of coastal USA, with hydropower/nuclear power being around half of coastal North-West use, and half of some East Coast states (USA power source map).
Why should the ever-increasing number of emission-free power consumers worldwide have their choice of products banned?
Why the negative “solidarity” thinking that bans them from using what they want (not just light bulbs), instead of positively looking at how other states can be provided with lower emitting power?
<!– -
Current nuclear energy is arguably not renewable (depending on breeder reactor viability). But the problem of using finite energy can be turned around (other forms of energy can be made available).
Besides, renewable hydropower is a major energy source alongside nuclear energy in those countries taken together. Also, of course, in the case of light bulbs, their heat is not necessarily a waste of energy anyway. Carbon emissions are a bigger problem, since their effects are said to be irreversible.
So all-in-all there is very little case to ban electrical products, even less so light bulbs, in these countries.
There are other reasons against a ban, that particularly apply to North/Central Europe…
–>
2. They more often have cold conditions for light usage:
Incandescent lights (ordinary light bulbs, halogen lights) come on quickly in the cold, unlike fluorescent “energy saving” lights, and the latter are not suitable for cold outdoor use (garages etc) unless specially made.
3. Homes in these areas tend to be bigger, with more light bulbs.
For example, the average USA household has around 45 lights (source: Energy Star), Northern and Central European houses have around 30 (source: European Commission).
This means:
• Increased variety of conditions where different lights are useful, so a ban on any lighting type is felt more. This also increases the frequency of cold condition situations, mentioned above.
Also. people in these regions are indoors and at home more, with a greater control of the lighting they use.
For more, see the section (http://www.ceolas.net/#li9x )of different lights and their uses around the house.
• More rooms and lamps with lights that are not often used - minimizing the supposed usage savings from buying more expensive lights, even more so when non-standard (and/or small) fittings mean that whole new lamps have to be bought too, dimmer and sensor circuits that need replacing (not to be used with non-incandescents), and so on.
Of course, any breakage, loss or malfunction of expensive lights adds more to household cost than with cheap bulbs.
4. Frosted light bulbs are particularly popular in such countries,
in Northern and Central Europe being up to 90% of the lights sold (Philips and Osram data 2009). But frosted lights are first in line for banning in the EU, a particularly petty policy even for the EU, with such lights only more marginally more inefficient (due to the bulb coating reducing the overall light output, though coating type can minimize or even exclude the effect).
The popularity of frosted lights is from giving a softer light, in the case of ceiling lamps also avoiding the glare of naked bright filaments.
EU politicians like to say that “lookalike halogen lights will be allowed”.
No, politicians, they are not, given the ban on the most popular frosted types, and if any of you bother to read your own banning specification document
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/ecodesign/doc/committee/2008_12_08_technical_briefing_household_lamps.pdf
(scroll to bottom) you will note that all mains voltage halogens are to be phased out anyway, indeed only a special B-class transformer requiring low voltage type is offered a - possible - respite. Yet another EU con-trick.
5. They particularly benefit from the light bulb heat effect
The heating effect of ordinary light bulbs is yet another misunderstood and ridiculed topic.
“Why should EU citizens want to heat their rooms with light bulbs” our politicians merrily proclaim.
The point is, once room heating is used, the heat substantially rises (put your hand above a heater):
The heat rises to the ceiling and spreads downwards from there, the convection currents being set up meaning that the heat from a small bulb near the ceiling can nevertheless usefully participate in heating the room, of course in proportion to the relatively small energy amounts they use.
Note how politicians can be 2-faced about this, although that should not be a surprise (see the earlier comment about emission savings):
In the USA, extensive government building analysis purports to show that light bulb heat significantly increases air conditioning cooling requirements, and indeed Brazil and other tropical countries were the first to ban the bulbs on that basis (though of course people could change lights themselves if they wish, and may prefer ordinary light bulbs for other reasons).
But when it comes to a possible benefit of all that heat release, the tune changes, “heat release of light bulbs is insignificant”.
In fact, all the European Commission has to do is to pay a guy in a white coat to tell assembled MEPs and journalists about the uselessness of this and other saving graces of light bulbs, and how “The energy use of all Romania can be saved” and further discussion is rendered meaningless.
The particular heat benefit in cool, temperate climates:
• There is a likely year-round reduction of heating bills as described, from heat given off the light bulbs. That is, even in the summer, when it is dark, it may be cold enough to turn on room heating in such locations. In any case heating is used more often than cooling (through air conditioners).
• The house insulation factor: The better built houses that they have are particularly well insulated, which gives a greater light bulb heat benefit compared to more poorly insulated ones elsewhere. The heat from bulbs stays in the room, not escaping through walls and in particular the ceiling.
Yet another point of irony: Governments are now increasing home insulation schemes to save on heating, at the same time as they are banning bulbs which would help save on heating - particularly in such newly insulated homes.
Clearly all these light bulb bans, wrongfully applied, should at least not be permanent (given the planned spread of low emitting electricity, and other reasons as previously stated) and should not apply throughout areas like the EU, the USA or Canada
September 11th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
How the “energy saving” lights (CFLs) power factor affects your Electricity Bill
Power companies typically need to generate more than twice as as much power to operate a typical CFL
than what your electricity meter - or CFL rating - shows, once everything is taken into consideration.
Of course you end up having to pay for this anyway, in electricity charges being higher than they otherwise would have been.
Without going into technicalities, this has to do with current and voltage phase differences set up when CFLs are used.
There is nothing new or strange about this
Industries are today penalized if they present such a work load to the power station.
Explaining power factor is not easy.. but people do their best.
The US Department of Energy ( http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/pdfs/mc60405.pdf ) compares with a horse pulling a load, while Sylvania light bulb manufacturer uses a foamy glass of beer analogy, before going into technical details - and light bulb comparisons ( http://www.sylvania.com/content/display.scfx?id=003680184 )
Unfortunately, that is only the begining of the extra costs that may be involved,
since the way CFLs use power also sets up so-called harmonic distortion in electricity grids that may therefore need to be adapted accordingly,
and there are other factors increasing electricity transmission costs
See http://www.ceolas.net/#li15eux onwards
Expensive CFLs do exist with corrected power factor, but they are rare on the market and power factor tends to worsen with use anyway.
Unsurprisingly politicians prefer to keep quiet about this as about other CFL disadvantages - and you will never know that your electricity bill is affected.
September 13th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Good Lord, you really are a twit Commissioner. Not just arrogant but a fool, a complete numpty.
The cost of adopting a new technology depends upon the time span over which that technology is adopted.
As an analogy, think of horses and tractors for farmers. Once the tractor is invented, something which is vastly more efficient than the horse as a farm technology, do we then insist that all farmers then shoot all horses and replace them with tractors?
No, we don’t, for we recognise that there’s a great deal of capital invested in the horses and all of the horse drawn equipment that is used in conjunction with them. We recognise that to destroy all of this installed capital would be to make everyone poorer.
What we do do though is we encourage (possibly through tax, possibly through education) farmers, once their current implementation of the old technology comes to the end of its working life, that is its value approaches zero and it is time to replace it, to move to the new technology.
That’s how to make the uptake of a new technology as efficient as possible. To work with the technological replacement cycle, not try to usurp it. For if we usurp it we are committing that terrible crime of making people destroy capital installations and thus making everyone poorer.
Light bulbs are just the same (and I write as someone who makes a good part of his living from the light bulb industry but no, not from either inceadescents nor CFLs. I do know what I’m talking about but still do not have a vested interest either way.).
We want the new technology to take over from the old, yes, this is entirely true. But we do not want everyone to have to go back and replace their current lighting infrastructure in order for this to happen. We don’t want, for example, it to be necessary for people to retrofit all those light sockets where CFLs cannot be used (one estimate is that 30% of UK sockets will have to be replaced).
What we want is that as that infrastructure is replaced in the normal course of things, as people redecorate, remodel their houses, as they replace the wiring, they replace light sockets with those that can use CFLs. In this manner we are not insisting that people destroy a large amount of installed capital….and as above, the destruction of installed capital is indeed the process of making people poorer.
The supposed advantage of having technocrats making decisions for us is that technocrats will make better decisions than we will. In this case, given that the technocrats seem ignorant of the most basic economic concepts (look, we’ve known all about this since 1850 when Bastiat published the Broken Window story….I suggest you look it up and get some education) this is clearly not true.
To repeat, by insisting that the entire lighting system of Europe has to be modified to be able to use CFLs you are making the entire populace of Europe poorer.
And what the hell is this 66% tariff on CFLs from China? You insist that we have to use them then you charge us a tax on them? There’s only one possible reaction in English to that sort of nonsense and it goes “Well you can **** right off then”.
September 13th, 2009 at 10:25 am
DUMBO - before you send us all blind trying to read with inadequate lighting …..
Helen Clark tried this stupid ban on filament bulbs - and the electorate promptly and rightly voted her out of office. She’s now gone to ground with the rest of the lefty loonies - UNO.
There’s no need to use the rubbishy bulbs you are pushing (do you hace shares in thier manufacture?)
AS soon as a problem arises the scientists will come up with the answer -
Ever heard of LIGHT EMITTING DIODES?
LET THERE BE LIGHT - WE DON’T WANT A RETURN TO THE DARK AGES< THANKYOU!
September 13th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
I fear that this is just another example of “Those who know best” not actually knowing what is best - yet more ill thought through legislation passed by low grade career busy bodies who couldn’t run a whelk stall.
The sooner we are shot of the lot of them, the better we will be.
September 13th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Dear Andris,
I learn to-day that you are the driving force behind the EU ban on incandescent light bulbs.
I have been a supporter of the CFL low energy light bulb for over 10 years and in my own house, they have replaced most of the standard bulbs because they are cheaper to run overall. At present, we have 38 CFLs, 10 low voltage halogen spotlights, 8 high voltage halogen spotlights and 7 incandesent lamps. The incandescent lamps are retained for good reasons;-
1 - where dimmer switches are used as the CFL equivalent suitable for dimmers is effectively unavailable in the UK and is extremely expensive
2 - where there are cut glass chandeliers and clear lanterns as anything other than a clear bulb looks awful
3 - where for safety reasons, we need a light which will come on immediately at full brightness
Why on earth should the EC prevent me from choosing to continue using and buying incandescent bulbs where I need them?
You make the point that over the years, a whole range of new inventions have taken over from previous ones but this must be the first time that it has been made illegal to carry on with the old practice. In this case, the action has been competely counter productive - you have encouraged a panic buying of incandescent bulbs which will ensure they are in general use much longer than they would have been. The EU would have been much better advised if they had carried on encouraging the use of lower energy alternatives and addressing some of the real issues with some of the newer bulbs, including:-
* The fact that they use less energy but take up to 10 times as much energy to manufacture compared with an incandesect lamp
* That they are wasteful of materials because the electronics, unlike a large fluorescent tube, are embedded and thrown away with the lamp
* That the useful life of a CFL is actually only half that normally quoted because, like all fluorescent lamps, they start going dim after half their full life and need replacing
* The time for a CFL to warm up to full light output is typically 30 to 60 seconds and they are therefore not suitable for certain locations where safety or security is important
* CFLs and all fluorescent lamps do seriously effect people with certain illnesses including epilepsy, migraines and some nervous conditions
* The disposal of fluorescent lamps, especially CFLs which have incorporated electronics, needs to be organised carefully
Your approach to this has all the ingredients of a totalitarian state which makes the EU so unpopular in the UK and the sooner the EU stops interfering with the life of normal people the better.
Andrew Robinson
Chartered Electrical Engineer
September 13th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Sorry folks - I forgot to mention - how many years of so-called low energy bulb usage (even using “their” highly suspect figures) will it take to offset just one year of the EU carbon saving hypocrites’ totally unnecessary journeying between Brussels and Strasbourg?
Answers on a post card please, Mr Piebalgs.
September 13th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
We are supposed to be living in Democratic Western Societies where we elect people to guide us, not Communism or dictatorships issuing edicts.
1. By all means encourage us to do things which you may think are good for us the EU or the planet, but never order us to do things in a free market economy, it will surely back-fire.
2. Have you considered the fifty million pensioners in Europe ? With failing eye sight, You will not get one to support your arogant, blanket ban.
Wwe need maximum light to give us the few pleasures of reading and daily routines. We cannot risk getting to the top of the stairs and having to wait for the light to warm up, for no other reason than the EU says so.
3. Why not take your argument further and order us all to use candles again….
PLEASE LEAVE US WITH SOME FREDOM OF CHOICE IN THIS EUROPEAN DICTATORSHIP
Donald Sage
September 14th, 2009 at 9:07 am
It’s rather amusing to read a blog in which the contrived and specious justifications for banning incandescent light bulbs in favor of an unhealthy, dangerous, and toxic “green” alternative, based on an equally contrived Global Warming hoax, is completely at odds with virtually every comment posted to this article by its readers.
It seems that a state functionary goes forward with the agenda assigned to him, whether his presentation takes place within an un criticized, central Soviet system or within the current “democratic” open-to-criticism forum seen here. In either arena, the die is cast. It doesn’t matter whether the party line is presented to a captive audience or to an openly critical audience, the agenda decided by the Illuminated Oligarchs who assign their bidding to commissars, comrades, or commissioners will go forward-in any event.
Or will it?
I notice that many readers here are nearly pleading with the commissioner to change his mind and “see the light” as it were (pun intended). However, the commissioner is never going to change his mind about any of this because it isn’t HIS mind that has set the die. He’s carrying out an agenda assigned to him and he will stick to it no matter how many cogent and logical rebuttal commentaries are posted here. It seems that elite planners always feel the need to put on the propaganda sideshow in order to wear down and wear out dissent. Just keep on beating the “message” over and over into the goyim’s heads, and soon enough, resistance will SEEM futile. There is a fly in the ointment with this mind set, however.
REAL control and power is a matter of PERCEPTION and only held by those to whom it is GIVEN. Remove your cooperation from this equation and suddenly you have a room full of chiefs and no indians to follow orders.
A sleeping tiger is awakening here in America. A line has been drawn in the sand. And those who think they can mandate GM foods, or high voltage mercury vapor fluorescent lighting, or forced vaccination of patented “Swine flu” bio-weapons are in for a rude awakening.
It’s really just a matter of deciding that you’re NOT going to go along with the enslavement agenda and cracks in the dam begin to spring almost immediately. Commissioners will be the first to run for cover.
Ken Adachi, editor
educate-yourself.org
September 14th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Dear Sir,
Three points:
1. Those bulbs you are forcing on us are rubbish. They take time to light up, compared to ordinary light bulbs which respond immediately. Even when fully lit up, they are not as good as normal bulbs & will have a detrimental effect on people’s eyesight. Why do you think they are being given away free? Because, unless forced to people wouldn’t buy them.
2. It is already well known that these bulbs are more difficult & more dangerous to dispose of.
3. Your arrogant attitude that you, an unelected official as far as I know, have the right to tell us what we can & cannot do is typical of the arrogant attitude of the EU in general. It is a shame that the totalitarion & fascist behaviour formerly practised by some current EU members seems to have found a spiritual home within the EU. This is why the EU is hated so much in many of the ’satellite states’ and why so many people look forward to the day their homeland leaves this undemocratic, unelected & non-accountable tyranny of thieves.
September 14th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
I didn’t vote for you and from what I can make out there is no way that I can vote you out of office. Does that make you a Dictator? Because that’s what you’re doing, dictating to me what I must do without any democratic mandate. Why should I recognise your “authority”?
September 14th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Andris,
Any chance of a response to the many comments here?
September 14th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Thank you, Mr. Piebalgs,
for trying to bring mercury back into our homes from which we just removed mercury-containing barometers and thermometers. One day you’ll look back, and wish you had sticked to taxing environmental pollution, and cleaning up energy production.
What are you telling the pregnant mother who manages a household by herself, and needs to clean up the Hg-leaking CFLs that children broke while playing, while the wind happens to blow INTO the window of the room where the bulbs broke? Remind her of the Soviet Cernobyl fire-fighters who did what they had to do in 1986?
Enough said, your action reminds me of very evil empires, and some day, this EU usurpation of our private choices will need to fall:
http://otitismediamc.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/apltbrig.jpg
September 16th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Well, Mr. Piebalgs is only a visible part of a lobying iceberg behind this as well as a super-citizen of EU. It is doubtful that any of the comments here would receive his answer, let alone postponing or canceling the ban on 100 W bulbs.
This decision hits producers which are struggling all over EU (production in EU is a difficult business), and is likely to vastly increase the number of 100 W bulbs sold over the counter (illegally). The price difference between 2 types of bulbs in Latvia, for instance, is at least 10 times - an incentive that would be very hard to overcome by grey market and very hard to control by authorities. If this is would they wanted, they have well achieved it.
I come from a country which is continuously confronting bureaucratic stupidity and otherworldness and therefore am rather quick to possible ways-around of this ban. Since the ban is on 100 W bulbs, why not make 95 or 105W bulbs for instance? They are not banned, they cannot be since they are not on the market. I hope the EU manufacturers would be able to adjust, Chinese manufacturers would for sure…
September 16th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
I thought a blog was supposed to be a two way street? Anyway I am all in favour of reducing my electricity bills by using more efficient light bulbs and financially this applies to about a third of them - the third that are used most. The sums for the others don’t add up at current prices.
Mr Piebalgs says that the new bulbs come in the same shape and appearances and type of light. Well I’ve got news for him, they don’t in the UK, at least not that I can find. We have 74 candle bulbs of various wattages in our house, in a variety of wall fittings and chandeliers, most with lampshades which clip on to the bulb. Firstly the new type are not the same shape and are nearly twice the size so the shades will not fit and if they are jammed on look like a man whose hat is 6 sizes too small. Secondly they all have an opaque plastic disc at the base so that little light is shed from upright bulbs in a downwards direction. Thirdly the light is unpleasant and harsh. If warm new-style lightbulbs (something to do with the number of kajoules Which magazine tells me) are indeed available I can’t find them.
Perhaps Mr Piebalgs can point us in the right direction.
If anyone had brought these proposals to me when I was running companies, their rear ends wouldn’t have touched sides. It is quite extraordinary that there are people in apparent positions of power with so little ability.
September 28th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
What is the real reason for this ban?
Like others with a scientific background,
it’s clear to us that supposed savings arguments don’t hold up
(see previous comments, and referenced links
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1x onwards, especially http://www.ceolas.net/#li6x and http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x onwards)
There is obviously industrial poiltics involved here,
with major manufacturers at the forefront
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax
Also note the following recent news:
Washington DC/Nairobi, 25 September 2009
A new global initiative to accelerate the uptake of low energy light bulbs and efficient lighting systems was launched today by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).The close to $20 million initiative, the Global Market Transformation for Efficient Lighting Platform that will be implemented in collaboration with the private sector companies OSRAM and Philips, is aimed at reducing the bills of electricity consumers in developing economies while delivering cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases.
[ re reducing bills and emissions they mention:
- even if electricity usage decreases significantly (it won’t, for reasons given) electricity bills are hardly reduced anyway, inasmuch that power companies then need to cover their costs by putting up rates, using less fuel doesn’t compensate.
- emissions can and should of course be dealt with directly, light bulbs don’t give out any gases, and bans are unfair on households without emissions (as expanded on in previous comments).
September 29th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Extensive bans proposed on other household products
Clearly, like me, there are many who were not informed about the light bulb ban as it was being proposed,
and normal parliamentary procedure, which might have seen public engagement too,
was short-circuited in implementing this ban
( http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax )
However, regarding what some commenters said above, in fairness the Commissioner has at least mentioned light bulb and other bans before on his blog.
For those who do not know,
The light bulb ban is only the start.
Refrigerators, freezers, washing machines, dishwashers, , boilers, heaters, TV-sets, plasma screens, computers and much else are up for efficiency based bans.
A natural reply might be ”well isn’t it good to only have efficient products?”
But efficiency is only one advantage a product can have.
Inefficent products have advantages too - or noone would buy them.
Whether TV sets or dishwashers or other products,
performance, appearance , construction, cost and indeed savings can all be negatively affected by
imposing efficiency standards on them.
Anyone who wants an understanding of this
can read http://ceolas.net/#cc2x onwards.
Energy or emission problems can and should be addressed directly,
there is no need to ban what people want to buy.
See Commissioner Piebalgs announcement of most of the above mentioned bans - and the comments:
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/piebalgs/switching-on-to-energy-efficiency/
September 29th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Sir,
I kindly ask you to give us a clue in what way CFL manufacturer bribed you to enforce this.
I remember kind of similar “bright idea” 20 years ago, back in the dark communist era in Romania.
Your visionary idea have many flaws. When you shear us the info about energy savings you should not consider the savings in EUR per household but the savings in … energy units.
Energy isn’t Money! (Or money can buy everything as previously suggested?).
Only think about the “gradual” way of phasing out our light. The are no longer 100W incandescent “wasteful” bulbs so I have to replace one of 100W bulb with 5 or even 6 of 25W still existing bulbs wasting this 25-50W only per room only for this.
Why are the incandescent bulbs inefficient? Because of the heat they produce? I may turn off the electrical heating systems (they’re banned yet… no real money there… sorry no pun intended). The heating of a bulb is not so much to count? So, why this ban?? I’ll assume is about the summertime.
Please provide us a real study with power consumption (not money) to produce, use and recycle some incandescent light bulbs and CFL providing the equivalent light for the same time. I may only guess that only mercury handling get more KWh.. Add to that list the power used for changing electrical transformer to fit the new type of consumption… If this become too technical, hire a engineer for this to detail this. Another money spend to build equipment another energy waste for that equipment…
Most of that energy is wasted out of China so we could blame them they’re not “green” as we - European - are..
What about the medical studies, drugs and interventions all “transformed” in energy consumption… All the energy consumed about this little bulb change.
Anyway, no amount of energy is wasted for one’s health.
Please, PLEASE think twice about this…
October 1st, 2009 at 11:35 am
Dear Mr Piebalgs,
The main objection against the banned lamps is that they produce more heat than light. Is it not?
Now, why is that a bad thing when the heat stays within the building?
In our climate, this building has to be heated to more or less degree 6 months of the year anyway.
So, the heating cost will go up, because the required temperature needs to be attained anyway. The total energy signature is not influenced significantly.
And, you will find that the lighting requirement will coincide with a heating requirement even more often than 50% of the time. In other words, the ban on these lamps is almost completely inconsequental from an energy point of view.
Please respond,
Best regards, Xander
October 9th, 2009 at 3:57 am
Banning incandescence: straining at a knat and swallowing a camel.
The ‘inversion’ of value added tax across Europe will achieve, at a single stroke, all energy rationalisation and environmental protection (cut CO2 emissions, reduce pollution, boost recycling, encourage use of alternatives like public transportation and organic food husbandry, extend product life etc.) without redcing revenue and with hardly any paperwork and no evasion. Added energy is almost indistinguishable from added value but does not hit employment. The switch to UNITax from VAT is achieved by a dynamic duty of around E20/GJ once only on primary fuels where they first enter the economy (and on imports and rebated on exports as is VAT). UNITax is a fairer, broader base and, uniquely, revenue is dynamic and unaffected by reduced consumption (CO2 halved in 10 years). The rate is calculated to improve pensions and benefits to cover the base level costs of raw fuels in domestic use.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
It takes a Latvian to stop the so called ‘free countries’ citizens from being able to read. If these eco lights are so efficient, where are the 150 and 200 watt equivalents? Why are we forced to use several ‘rubbish’ lights where previously we could see using only one bright light?
Is it a way of forcing people who cn read, away from being able to read?
Why are lights which state that they are ‘guaranteed’ for long periods of time and sell at extortionate expense, continually blowing? How many people can trace the exact receipt for each light bulb in the house? Of course, being fleeced is all part of the game, isn’t it? More money for mates of bureaucrats, who make asinine rules.
Totalitarianism is just around the corner. An increasiongly controllably internet; an already very controlled press; laws against public gatherings; unaccountable politicians and bureaucrats; inspection bodies which are totally (deliberately?) inefficient; and a ‘gravy-train cartel’ of European unaccountabls to run us into the ground.
Time to take up reading… sorry, I forgot, the light is too dim.
Thanks Andris.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Dear Andris,
you have done a terrible, terrible disservice to the fragile legitimacy of european democracy.
How dare you to deal so frivolously with such an important topic as climate change? You have set many peoples minds against change by meddeling in their homes with your crude methods while at the same time not being able to do anything of real significance
How dare you make dicissions for 500 million people. You or your comittee were not elected by the european citizens. No debate in any parliament in any country in europe was held on your committes decission. No vote was taken in any country.
How can you dispell the believe that your comittee was, directly or indirectly, payed of, influenced or swerved by Phillips, Osram et al?
How can you convince me that you are not a Stalinist at heart? You know, “whe know best what is good for OUR PEOPLE”
How dare you to come to my home and redecorate? Did I invite you in?
Great job done!
P.S. I take it from your detailed responses to this blog how serious you are about ‘the democratic process’