A European Union ban on the manufacture and import of 100 watt and frosted incandescent light bulbs has come into force. The EU wants the bulbs to be replaced by longer-lasting compact fluorescent lamps, they use 80% less electricity than the type of bulbs we’ve been using since the 19th century. It’s estimated that the annual energy savings when everyone in the EU is using the newer style bulbs will add up to FIVE BILLION EUROS.
Time for the Luddite minority to get their knickers in a twist, and for certain parts of the media to saddle up the heated debate brigade, with arguments against the ban including dimmer switches won’t work, the light’s a bit funny, and old people like the traditional bulbs. My favourite is … because traditional light bulbs are really heat bulbs [95% of the energy they use produces heat] we’ll have to turn up our heating in the winter if we use energy saving bulbs.
Here’s a report from NINA-MARIA POTTS.
As is always the case when something like this gets whipped up there are predictions of panic buying. However, the clear 60-watt bulb, one of the most commonly used, will remain available until at least September 2011, and clear 40-watt bulbs until 2012. So plenty of time to build up a secret stash. But it doesn’t look like many of us are likely to be seen with wheelbarrows of lightbulbs any time soon. Over the last six months, UK sales of traditional power-hungry bulbs actually fell by 22%.
1 comment:
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 about this:
Europeans, like Americans, choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (EU 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 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...
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 consumption (and therefore energy use and emissions) would 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/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 raidsed?
.
Post a Comment