Search Pinoy Tech Buzz

Thursday, September 3, 2009

EU starts turning out old-fashioned light bulbs

Tuesday marks the beginning of the end for traditional, energy-guzzling light bulbs throughout Europe, with the 100-watt and frosted bulbs the first to go.

It is all part of a three-year scheme to rid the whole of the European Union of the traditional incandescent bulbs first put on the market by Thomas Edison in 1879.

Some consumers have been stockpiling the old-style versions, aware that the more energy-efficient long-life fluorescent or halogen lamps cost more to buy.

And while shops will be allowed to sell off their remaining stocks, as of Tuesday there will be no new orders of non-transparent frosted bulbs -- deemed particularly inefficient -- or the standard clear 100-watt bulbs.

The less powerful clear bulbs will be progressively banned until all traditional lights disappear from shops in 2012.

It's all part of the EU's bigger plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020.

The new bulbs, such as compact florescent lights (CFL) can save up to 80 percent of the energy used by the worst old-style lights in homes.

They are also described as lasting several times longer than the bulbs they will replace.

So even though the new bulbs cost more, the European Commission stresses that consumers will save money: between 25 to 50 euros a year, depending on the size of the household, the EU executive claims.

"Although this move has been welcome by many, some consumers are still uncomfortable with the idea of giving up their familiar light bulbs in favour of modern and more efficient alternatives," EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs wrote on his blog.

"Much like the car and the telephone caught on with everyone, I have no doubt that once Europeans start using the modern alternatives to the inefficient light bulbs, they will start to enjoy the advantages they have to offer," he added.

But consumer groups have already started adding health fears to existing concerns over pricing.

For while the European Consumers' Association the BEUC has welcomed the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs, it has expressed concern about the high mercury content of their replacements.

The EU plan also "falls short of the needs of some consumers who need to use the old-style light bulbs for health-related reasons such as light sensitivity," the BEUC added.

The Commission argues that the new bulbs will cut mercury emissions from power stations.

But it has also published guidelines for dealing with mercury spills from broken bulbs: avoid skin contact and do not use a vacuum cleaner to clear up.

And so far as the needs of light-sensitive people are concerned, the EU executive suggests they use "improved incandescent bulbs with halogen technology".

Judging from the orders received from Osram, one of the biggest light makers in Europe, people have already started buying more of the new generation bulbs.

However Alice Pirgov, an expert at the German consumer research institute (GfK) speaks of panic buying there as "the classic light bulb is associated with tradition."

The European Commission on Monday did not rule out the possibility of the old 100-watt bulbs becoming something of a collector's item and changing hands at inflated prices.

2 comments:

  1. Well,
    EU Energy Commisioner Piebalgs also defends his ban on his blog, that you mention,
    by saying it INCREASES choice!
    Notice the comments in the blog to that :-)

    http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/piebalgs/lighting-the-way-to-the-future

    All about the strange EU and industrial politics that led to the ban:
    http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hardly surprising about the stockpiling...

    Europeans, like Americans, choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 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:
    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

    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. Another half of more of supposed switch savings are negated in temperate climates, as shown via the above link with US and other research references.

    Conversely,
    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

    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/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 debate elsewhere?

    The strange and unpublicised EU and industrial politics that went on before the ban took place...
    http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax
    .

    ReplyDelete