Europe sees the light over energy-saving bulbs
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
THE end is in sight for the traditional lightbulb after EU leaders yesterday called for a mass switch-off and a push to equip homes and offices with energy efficient alternatives within two years.
The initiative, part of an ambitious plan to cut carbon emissions, follows the move by Australia to switch to energy-saving lightbulbs and a similar initiative in California.
Jumping firmly on the low-energy lighting bandwagon, EU leaders asked the European Commission plans to rush through proposals to phase out incandescent bulbs - which contain a filament - in private homes across the EU by 2009.
The blueprint was unveiled by Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, which holds the presidency of the EU. She revealed that she has switched to low-energy bulbs at home.
"I've got energy-saving lightbulbs in my flat in Berlin," she said. "I believe that each individual can make a genuine contribution through responsible use of lightbulbs and lamps."
Poland's president, Lech Kaczynski, was caught off-guard when asked about his record on the issue. He said: "I assume the light bulbs in the presidential palace are energy-saving but I don't know - I'm not in charge of that, really."
The summit conclusions asked the European Commission "to rapidly submit proposals to enable increased energy efficiency requirements on office and street lighting to be adopted by 2008, and on incandescent lamps and other forms of lighting in private households by 2009."
The move won the backing of Green MEP, Caroline Lucas, who said: "Banning old-fashioned lightbulbs across the EU would cut carbon emissions by about 20 million tonnes a year - and save €5bn-€8bn (£3.4bn-£5.4bn) a year in domestic fuel bills."
However the German Chancellor may have undermined her cause by admitting that the low-energy bulbs have sometimes left her Berlin flat in a state of gloom. Ms Merkel said they are "not quite bright enough so sometimes when I'm looking for something that's dropped on the carpet I have a bit of a problem."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Reduce your global impact.
Comments
but illustrates the folly then as now.
Let's first assume that all the pro-ban arguments hold.
Banning is still wrong.
Why?
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.
This is simply a ban to reduce electricity consumption.
(and light bulbs don't give out CO2 gas - power stations do)
Even for those who remain pro-ban, taxation to reduce the consumption would be fairer and make more sense, also 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 pounds/euros 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.
When sufficent low emission electricity delivery is in place, the ban can be lifted
http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html
Taxation is itself unjustified, it is simply a better alternative for all concerned than bans.
Of course an EU ban is underway, but in phases, supposedly with reviews along the way, according to the banning documentation...
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings - no point in banning an impopular product!
If new LED lights - or improved CFLs 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 valves were banned? they were bought less anyway.
The need to save energy?
Advice is good and welcome, but bans are another matter...
people -not politicians ? pay for energy 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, the price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products ? no need to legislate for it.
Supposed savings don?t hold up anyway, for many reasons:
http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x
onwards
about CFL brightness, lifespan, power factor, lifecycle, heat benefit of ordinary bulbs, and other referenced research
Brief examples
Effect on Electricity Bills
If energy use does indeed fall with light bulb and other proposed efficiency bans,
electricity companies make less money to cover fixed overheads (using less fuel gives insufficient savings)
and they?ll simply push up the electricity bills to compensate, enot least since power companies often have their own grids with little supply competition.
Energy regulators can hardly deny any such cost covering exercise...
- in which case money savings affected
Conversely:
Since energy efficiency in effect means cheaper energy,
people simply leave appliances on more than before This has actually been shown by Scottish and Cambridge research, as linked on the website
(in the case of CFLs they're supposed to be left on more anyway, to avoid cutting down on their lifespan)
- in which case energy savings affected
The fact that they are not as bright as stated is another reason against supposed savings
See comparison test
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne
Also, since lifespan is lab tested in 3 hour cycles, any increased on-off switching reduces it, as does (as said) leaving the lights on to combat it.
More:
CFLs typically have a "power factor" of 0.5
Power companies therefore typically need to generate more than twice as as much power
than what your electricity meter - or CFL rating - shows, taking everything 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.
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):
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x
.
But some people want to live in light and creat beautiful placed for them where so many bulbs. it is very beautuful you can see Garden Lighting
and you understand everything. But be honest to youerself and try to make this world better.