Europe's ban on the incandescent light bulb began phasing in this month, and the U.S. will soon follow. Is Thomas Edison to blame for global warming? And why are we exporting green jobs?
When the warm-mongers assemble in Copenhagen this December to hammer out a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol, no doubt their work to save the earth from the carbon dioxide that gives it life will take place under the eerie light thrown off by compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) mandated by the European Union to fight climate change.
The bulbs are more expensive, costing up to six times as much as an equivalent incandescent bulb. But they're said to be more economical in the long run because they supposedly use up to 80% less energy than old-style bulbs and don't burn out as quickly.
The change will be gradual. The clear 60-watt bulb will be allowed to be sold until at least September 2011 and clear 40-watt bulbs until 2012. In Germany there's a run on Edison's creation, with sales of incandescents up 34%. Is a black market in bulbs in the offing?
The Telegraph newspaper reports that European officials are conceding CFLs are not as bright an idea as first advertised.
An 11-watt CFL is advertised as being the equivalent of a 60-watt incandescent. Officials in Brussels responsible for the ban admit that this is "not true" and that such claims are "exaggerated."
Tests conducted by London's Telegraph found that using a single lamp to illuminate a room, an 11-watt CFL produced only 58% of the illumination of an "equivalent" 60-watt incandescent — even after a 10-minute warm-up that consumers have found necessary for a CFL to reach its full brightness.
The European Commission advises consumers of the environmental hazards posed by CFLs. If one breaks, you're advised to air out rooms and avoid using vacuum cleaners to prevent exposure to mercury in the bulbs. You can't just throw out an old bulb. It must be properly thrown out, lest your bedroom or family room become a Superfund toxic waste site.
Mercury is considered by environmentalists to be among the most toxic of toxic substances and, yes, it is dangerous if ingested or handled over time. We've been warned that high concentrations in fish are dangerous to pregnant women. We've been told mercury in vaccines causes autism.
So now it's safe in fragile light bulbs?
7 comments:
yes, a good article..
there is much to question about the light bulb ban...
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
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,
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 fact that they are not as bright as stated is another reason against supposed savings
See link to the comparison test mentioned in that article above:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6110547/Energy-saving-light-bulbs-offer-dim-future.html
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
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?
Panta Rei, Thank you so much for your wonderful comments and insight.
I can only hope people seek to be informed about this situation our elected officials have foisted upon us. As for CFL they also pose a health risk with the mercury they carry. They have to be disposed of in a particular manner to be "safe".
Thank you for the links.
We got some for free. They all burned out (much more quickly than expected) and then we had to make a special car trip to Lowe's where they have a protected bin to throw them away.
I saw at Wal Mart now they are selling double-glass CFL's. It's the spiral inside, plus an incandescent shaped glass bulb on the outside. And THAT saves energy?
Thanks Lee!
Yes there is much to question about the CFLs, as Tina says too..
I think it's important to bear in mind all the other reasons a ban is wrong,
lot's of people say "buy LED lights instead",
which is fair enough,
but there are all the other arguments about free choice, actual final savings, and - if all else is wrong - taxation being better anyway.
Certainly though,
the mercury you mention
makes it all the more unbelievable
- normally it's mercury products (thermometers etc) banned, here one is pushed as a replacement
If you want, you can see
http://www.ceolas.net/#li19x
for a full rundown about mercury,
about recent Maine state testing that has led to stricter USA
guidelines re breakages,
and why coal power mercury emissions (from ordinary bulb use) are no excuse,
(and those emissions are being dealt with anyway
in a radical EPA reduction policy as explained).
Found this interesting tid bit
Mr Piebalgs has waged a public war against opponents of the ban, mocking their stance and accusing them of being “resistant to change”.
Oh, jeez, I buy those energy saving bulbs because they don't through off too much light and I prefer lower lights.
A BAN seems a little extreme and I agree taxation makes better sense. There are more important ways to help the environment. I'm not against green jobs, primarily because so few Americans have jobs at all. From a financial perspective, creating a green industry would help a lot of people.
Tina, my husband and I have found that these lights last much longer than traditional bulbs. I don't know if the wattage has anything to do with the CFLs burning out faster, but I'm glad you pointed that out. And, no, of course double glassed light bulbs don't save energy. You're absolutely right.
As far as disposal goes, standard batteries should require special disposal. I'm not good at practicing what I preach on this point.
I know we don't agree about global warming, Lee. But the people in this thread make some good points.
You bring up a rather ironic point: many fish can cause mercury poisoning. That fact is openly published. I'd need to look into this more closely for myself to figure out whether CFLs or fish are more dangerous. Mercury poisoning is a serious issue
No answers from me on this one.
Post a Comment