130 years after Edison tested the first commercially viable lightbulb, EU legislators are finally closing the book on this life-changing, but what some see as an antiquated technology. Restrictions on the sale of incandescent bulbs began last week with the phase-out of 100W incandescent bulbs. These efforts are being hailed as a method of saving energy and combating global warming, yet consumers are still flocking to stores to stock up on the old-style bulbs for aesthetic or personal reasons.
The new compact fluorescent lightbulbs are billed as being 80% more energy efficient and longer lasting, though they cost about 20 times more than an incandescent bulb and contain toxic mercury. Consumer groups in Europe have welcomed the measures, stating that the country could save as much as $8 billion in energy costs, but warn that those with certain health problems or light sensitivity issues still need access to incandescent bulbs.
Martin Callanan, a European Parliament member was quoted in the New York Times saying "the blanket ban could spell misery for thousands of epilepsy and anxiety sufferers who are adversely affected by energy-saving bulbs." In addition, these bulbs will not function with dimmer switches and give off a harsh light that may force photographers, videographers, museum, nightclub, and theater owners to import incandescent bulbs from countries that have no-such ban in place.
Some environmental groups feel that the threat of mercury exposure and groundwater poisoning outweighs the energy-saving potential of these bulbs. Some consumers complain that these bulbs do not last as long as incandescent bulbs when switched on and off multiple times a day, which may lead to continued operation that negates energy savings.
The United States is considering a similar ban for 2012, and division lines over the issue is already beginning to develop between consumer groups and environmentalists.
Visit ecofactory on Twitter and visit us anytime at twitter.com/ecofactory !
light bulb ban is wrong - from any perspective
Unlike many people here in Europe against the 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 a little about this!
Europeans (like Americans) choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (European Commission and 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 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/tubes 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 effect of ordinary bulbs, and other referenced research
Effect on Electricity Bills
If energy use does indeed fall with light bulb and other proposed efficiency bans,
electricity companies make less money,
and 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...
- 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 only real "energy saving" going on is in the mental activity of politicians in Brussels.. London... Dublin...
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
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.
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 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.
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 in a couple of years time...
Maybe the debate in USA and Canada will be affected by the issues being raised over here?