What do Cuba , Australia and Europe have in common? Hey! Besides that! How about they are the first countries in the world to ban the use of the incandescent light bulb in favor of its twisty and vastly more expensive (not counting electrical consumption, of course) florescent replacement? From less than a “buck-a-bulb” for the old “glowy” kind to fifteen to twenty times more money for that new, “not-quite-as-pretty” substitute.
By treaty, the European Union has pledged to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2020, and these bulbs seem to consume up to 80% less electricity to generate the same light levels and last a lot longer than conventional bulbs. So EU regulators have started, effective September 1st, by taking 100 watt incandescents off the market (shopkeepers can still sell off their old inventory), with 60 and 40 watt bulbs being phased out over the next few years. The energy savings are obviously huge as well. With 45% reduction in electrical power generation, the environmental cleansing from these spiral bulbs has to be spectacular.
A house with fluorescents is said to save a pile of money a year, the EU thinks the average household will save €50 per household (about $70), aggregating a huge €5 billion ($7 billion) for the entire European Union. Picture a carnival or Las Vegas without incandescents. Doesn’t seem the same… maybe because it won’t be. Think of all the money that needs to be spent when we ban those nasty incandescents, currently scheduled for 2012 in the United States , on sign replacements! Wow, now that’s a “green shoot” for new jobs and opportunities!
There are a few clear disadvantages, assuming you accept the quality of the resulting lights as comparable (some folks really have problems with fluorescent lamps, but the bulbs are getting better). Many think the resulting light is a little harsh. If you have your lights on dimmers, you have to buy a special kind of fluorescent bulb that accommodates that dimming capacity. Also, epileptics and certain folks afflicted with anxiety disorders also have an uncomfortable reaction to fluorescent light.
And then there’s this toxic mercury thang to worry about. The bulbs have an average of 5 milligrams of mercury per bulb now, and even if they reduce this to a more acceptable 2 milligrams, it’s still poison. This little snippet from the August 31st New York Times has me a tad worried: “[T]he European Commission acknowledged that compact fluorescent lamps had to be handled with extra caution. If one breaks, people are advised to air out rooms and avoid using vacuum cleaners when cleaning up the mess to prevent exposure to mercury and other electronic parts in the bulbs, officials said. Instead, householders should remove the debris with a wet cloth while avoiding contact with skin. Used bulbs should be put in special collection receptacles, officials said.” “No Spot, put the light bulb down!”
So I’m picturing exactly how Americans will react when they are told what kinds of lights they can and cannot use. Hmmmm. Particularly Texans. Yeah! Breathe deeply!
I’m Peter Dekom, and I thought this was interesting.
2 comments:
Well Peter,
If you want to know about the strange and unpublicised EU and industrial politics that went on before the ban took place:
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax
There are many illogical aspects to this ban, in my view...
Europeans, like Americans, choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 8-9 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 tubes were banned... they were bought less anyway.
Supposed savings don't hold up for many reasons:
A few examples:
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:
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. As shown via the above link with American and Canadian research references, half of more of the supposed switch savings are negated in temperate climates..
Also: Much greater energy in CFL manufacture, transport (from China) and recycling, compared to ordinary simple light bulbs.
Effect on Electricity Bills
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:
(especially since 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):
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x
A 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.
http://www.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 an EU ban is underway, but in phases, with reviews in a couple of years time...
maybe the rising controversy of it will influence American and Canadian - and Texan ;-) debate?
Post a Comment