In order to cut greenhouse emissions, fight climate change and save energy, 27 countries in the European Union (EU) are gradually phasing out traditional light bulbs. As of September 1st, 2009, 100-watt and frosted incandescent light bulbs can no longer be manufactured or imported, although stores can sell their remaining stock.
All incandescent light bulbs will be completely phased out over the next three years. In September 2011, 60-watt bulbs will be phased out followed by 40 and 25-watt bulbs in September 2012. And by the end of 2012, all incandescent bulbs will be banned. The incandescent bulbs will be replaced with more energy-efficient lighting, which use up to 80 percent less electricity than the old bulbs.
But the phase-out is not without controversy. Some opponents say that fluorescent bulbs are too expensive, too bulky, take longer to warm up, are too dim or flicker. There is also health and disposal concerns due to the mercury content in the CFL bulbs. And some consumers are said to be stock-piling the old bulbs. In fact, some retailers in Germany have seen a 600 percent increase in sales of the 100-watt bulbs since July!
The United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines are also expected to phase out the “old-fashioned” bulbs.
Single light bulb photo by Craig Jewell
CFL bulb photo by hozae on Flickr
Unlike most people against this ban,
I agree with the need to do something about emissions (for all they contain, whatever about CO2)
But banning light bulbs is not the way forward,
and I think people who are less in agreement with
the background arguments will just be turned off from cooperating in more important environmental measures.
Let’s think about this:
Europeans, like Americans, choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (light industry data 2007-8)
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings – no point in banning an impopular product!
If new LED lights -or improved CFLs- 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 valves were banned… they were bought less anyway.
Supposed savings don’t hold up for many reasons:
(http://ceolas.net#li13x onwards)
Just a few examples here:
Brightness problem of CFLs:
Supposed equivalents are not actually equivalent in brightness, so
higher energy using CFLs needed for adequate brightness.
See recent testing of CFL brightness versus ordinary bulbs:
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6110547/Energy-saving-light-bulbs-offer-dim-future.html
CFL 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
Also, CFLs get dimmer with age, effectively reducing lifespan
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:
ceolas.net/#li15eux
Heat benefit from using ordinary incandescent light bulbs
ceolas.net/#li6x
A little bulb near the ceiling may not seem like much, but
room heat substantially rises to the ceiling (convection) and spreads downwards from there. Half of more of supposed switch savings are negated in temperate climates, as shown via the above link with American and Canadian research references.
Also: Much greater energy in CFL manufacture, transport (from China) and recycling, compared to ordinary simple light bulbs.
Conversely,
if energy use does fall with light bulb and other proposed efficiency bans and electricity companies make less money,
they’ll simply push up the electricity bills to compensate:
(not least in USA, power companies often have their own grids with little supply competition)
Energy regulators can hardly deny any such cost covering exercise…
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.
A direct effective way to deal with emissions (for all else they contain too, whatever about CO2):
ceolas.net/#cc10x
The Taxation alternative
A ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.
We are not talking about banning lead paint here.
Even for those who remain pro-ban, taxation to reduce consumption would make much more sense, since 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 euros/dollars tax that reduces the current sales (EU like the USA 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.
ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html
However, taxation is itself unjustified, it is simply better than bans also for ban proponents, in overall emission lowering terms.
Of course a ban is underway, but in phases, with reviews in a couple of years time…
The strange and unpublicised EU and industrial politics that went on before the ban took place:
ceolas.net/#li1ax
Maybe the rising controversy of it will influence American and Canadian debate?
This is terrible! They must be crazy! Those fluorescent lightbulbs contain mercury, which is the most deadly non-radioactive element known. THEY should be banned. I won’t allow them in my house. One little crack, and the whole room is contaminated with mercury vapors, a source of a litany of chronic health problems. The disposal problem for fluorescent bulbs is impossible; there is no safe way to dispose of them. The accepted methods are very expensive, and not safe. The typical method, of throwing them in the dumpster, is not acceptable. The manufacture of these bulbs produces untold amounts of toxic mercury and other environmental poisons, also. Hope they figure out what a mistake this is fast!!
I definetly see the worldwide popularity of CFL has little to do with reducing emissions. There are many other ways to reduce emissions, like turning lights off and reducing our household appliances, among many others that call for less consumption.
I’m Ecuadorian and here CFLs are becoming popular, with the help of the media, the government and the industry. Some people is getting CFLs for free, with poor or nonexistent information on how to dispose them or manage a broken lamp. I see a lot of irresponsibility and a lot of economic interest.
Does everybody know they have mercury inside, and the health related issues?
Personally I don’t want mercury over my child’s head.
Ultraviolet (UV) Health Risks
UV rays damage our bodies by breaking down the structure of our DNA. UV is also known to cause a variety of health issues. Since the effects of UV are cumulative, all of the UV exposure your body has received since you were a child will have an effect on your body today… and tomorrow!
The UV radiation found in fluorescent lighting is present in two forms: UVA (320 to 400 nanometers [nm]), and UVB (280-320 nm). UVB rays pose a much greater risk of causing skin cancer than UVA.
UV radiation has long been known to cause a myriad of health problems. Some sources indicate that fluorescent lights emit more UVB than the sun. In the 1992 edition of the American Journal of Epidemiology, it was found that fluorescent lights emit “10-30 times” more UVB radiation than the sun does. UVB radiation has been found to be carcinogenic (cancer causing).
Chronic effects from long-term exposure to UV include premature skin aging, stronger allergic reactions, cataracts, blood vessel damage, a weakened immune system, and skin cancer.
You should also know that there are over 125 commonly used medications classified as photosensitizers that actually make your body UV-sensitive. Photosensitizing products can cause certain autoimmune diseases, such as lupus (in which the body’s auto-immune system mistakenly destroys itself) to worsen.
Seasonal Affective Disorder (S.A.D.)
Seasonal Affective Disorder, also known as S.A.D. is a mood disorder associated with episodes of depression and related to seasonal variations of light. This disorder usually abates during the spring and summer months.
The typical symptoms of S.A.D. include:
• Lack of energy
• Depression
• Increased desire for sleep
• Craving for sweets and weight gain
Melatonin, a sleep-related hormone secreted by the pineal gland in the brain, has been linked to S.A.D., which may affect over 10 million Americans this year. S.A.D. is often treated with “Phototherapy.” The goal is to fool the body’s melatonin manufacturing mechanism into thinking that it is spring or summer through the fall and winter, and many people respond to this therapy.
Most of my home is lit by florescent, however I am against the outlawing of incandescent bulbs – if case of a bad power situation (low or high voltage) old fashioned incandescent bulbs will still work, and you can even simply replace them with a heavier-duty incandescent bulb for tough conditions – while using your same fixtures.
Keep in mind how bad of shape our fragile power supply system is, doesn’t is seem stupid to “lock in” to bulbs that may not work under bad power conditons?
Also, if grandpa wants to read by a particular type of bulb, he has the right too! If my eyes can see better with a particular bulb, I am going to use that particular bulb, legal or not.
Lighting is also important for depression – some people with depression problems need to make sure that their lighting is the right type.
That’s probably true, but can you imagine the HUGE amount of energy that people can save using this lamps? There’s a great difference.
Good idea to ban. I work in a store which just ran a special on the old type bulbs 2 for 25. They also sell plenty of the Cfl which have to be recycled and they mostly are not.