BBC NEWS – EU bans old-fashioned light bulbs
Posted by lemiffe in Business, Life on Sep 1st, 2009 | 3 comments
A European Union ban on the manufacture and import of 100-watt and frosted incandescent light bulbs, in use since the 19th century, has come into force.
They are being phased out to encourage the switch to more energy-efficient fluorescent or halogen lamps, which use up to 80% less electricity.
Critics say the new bulbs are gloomy, and can trigger headaches and rashes in people with light sensitive disorders.
The ban is one of a series of measures in the EU to tackle climate change.
via BBC NEWS | World | Europe | EU bans old-fashioned light bulbs.
Related posts:
About why this ban is wrong, and the politics behind it
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1x onwards
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 (room heat substantially rises towards the ceiling by convection, and spreads downwards from there
http://ceolas.net/#li6x ).
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.
Another problem is that small bright CFLs and LEDs are difficult to make, so that candle/golfball lights are bulkier and may not fit some lamps.
Supposed savings don’t hold up for many reasons, apart from the possible heat benefit mentioned:
Just a few examples here: 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: http://ceolas.net/#li15eux
Conversely,
if energy use does fall with light bulb and other proposed efficiency bans and electricity companies make less money,
they’ll put up prices to compensate:
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.
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 (or equivalent) tax that reduces the current sales (EU 2 billion per annum, UK c. 250-300 million pa, Germany c 1/2 billion per annum), raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.
It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.
However, taxation is itself unjustified, it is simply better than bans also for ban proponents, in overall emssion lowering terms.
Cleaning up the earth makes sense, but not at the expense of personal preferences and choices. Incentives work best, instead of hard-fisted rules and commands.
I concur with you Brian. Or at least keep a small supply going of any determined product for those who have a serious problem changing, whether it is a health-related issue, or paranoia.