A summary, with links, of how people are being deceived about the ban,
whether in the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia or elsewhere.
1.
"This is not a ban!
We are just ensuring that light bulbs are made more energy efficient.
You can still buy the traditional looking incandescent type of light bulbs!"
This is not true, at least not in the USA and Europe:
Before 2020 (USA) and 2016 (the European Union)
all of the most common regular types of incandescent light bulbs, including the touted Halogen replacements, will be banned, as defined in the legislation.
More on this, with official links to USA, Canada, EU, Australia,
individual US and Canada state legislation, and state repeal bills (enacted in Texas):
http://ceolas.net/#li01inx
Blog post with relevant USA Energy Act extracts:
"Yes it is a Ban"
Moreover:
The Halogen and other replacement type incandescents have already existed for some time, and are not popular with either consumers or politicians, as they
cost much more for marginal energy savings, so politicians have not pushed their use with subsidies etc as with "energy saving" fluorescent bulbs (CFLs).
The replacement incandescents also have
differences anyway, in light quality, in running hotter, and so on, compared to traditional simple incandescent bulbs, and in the EU the most popular frosted types are already banned.
More on this issue:
http://ceolas.net/#li001x
2.
"We save a lot of energy and CO2/mercury emissions with this ban!"
For dramatic effect (as in the USA and the EU), this has been expressed in terms of the multitude of coal power plants and millions of tons of CO2 saved with a long term view (eg to 2030).
Also, note how politicians simply
project old CO2 and mercury emission data into the future - ignoring the many changes in energy delivery and emission reduction that the same politicians say they will implement!
Actual energy savings are a fraction of 1% of overall energy use and around 1% of grid electricity, as seen with official USA Department of Energy and other institutional data:
http://ceolas.net/#li171x
The "saving of coal power plants" would not hold up anyway
http://ceolas.net/#li172x
while the CO2 emissions argument is wrong also for other reasons
http://ceolas.net/#cc24x
- whether or not one agrees with the need to reduce man-made CO2 emissions in the first place.
The CFL mercury v. coal mercury emissions issue is covered on
http://ceolas.net/#li198x.
Besides, light bulbs don't burn coal, and they don't release CO2 gas.
Power plants might - and they might not.
If there is a problem, deal with the problem:
There are much more relevant future energy savings in coal power plant efficiency,
alternative energy supply, grid distribution upgrades, smart grid systems,
and in alternative consumption savings.
http://ceolas.net/#nea2x
Moreover:
The energy use in
manufacturing complex CFLs or LEDs, when including ballast and transformer component manufacture as well as the usual simple assembly measurement, may equate to more than 1 year's usage, to which should be added the environmental cost of rare mineral and mercury
mining, the extra CO2 emissions from
Chinese coal plant powered manufacture, and the energy use and CO2/mercury emissions of low grade
bunker oil powered ships
transporting such bulbs around the world, as covered on the Ceolas site.
The comparatively easy local environmentally friendly manufacture of simple incandescents, with local jobs, may be noted.
3.
"Consumers will see great savings on their electricity meters!"
Politicians like to emphasize how consumers save in running costs from buying more expensive bulbs.
Common switchover examples only use
main household lighting.
Not only is the main kitchen lighting often already a fluorescent tube,
there are many light bulbs that are rarely used in 20+ (Europe) or 40+ (North America) lighting point households, giving minimal or no savings in such situations when using expensive bulbs, bulbs that might also be lost or broken.
The mentioned overall small energy savings include why consumer savings are less than expected
http://ceolas.net/#li171x
A longer rundown can be seen from
http://ceolas.net/#li12x onwards.
For example, the so-called "
power factor" (not the same as power rating) of ordinary "energy saving" fluorescent bulbs means that they use
twice the energy at the power plant than do ordinary incandescent bulbs, compared to what your meter says.
http://ceolas.net/#li15eux, with references, including Sylvania/Osram factsheet
admission about the actual double energy usage of common CFLs.
That is not all, since many cheap
LEDs for domestic use
also have power factor issues.
Electricity consumers of course have to pay for this "hidden cost" in higher bills.
Conversely:
With any electricity saving the electricity companies make less money,
and they simply raise the electricity bills, or receive state subsidies (out of citizens pockets) to compensate, as already seen in several countries and states
http://ceolas.net/#li1ax
Heads you lose - Tails they win
4.
"But incandescents waste 95% of their energy as heat!"
Not only do incandescents often
usefully release around 95% of their energy as heat:
Politicians "forget" to add that CFLs and LEDs
really waste energy as heat, CFls
80% and LEDs
70%.
That is because the CFL/LED heat is
internalized, to give a greater, unseen, unpredictable fire risk, particularly with CFLs (incandescent heat being more noticeable, to warn users).
http://ceolas.net/#li18eax
The incandescent heat "waste" is therefore a useful side-effect in temperate climates, given that when its dark it's often cold.
The energy savings from the lesser use of other room heating is shown by much institutional research, as referenced,
http://ceolas.net/#li6x.
If room heating is not electric, the saving will not show up on the electricity meters.
Conversely, while incandescent use decreases the effect of air conditioning cooling, it is of course optional, and might still be preferred for light quality and other reasons.
There are many more reasons why a ban in Canada, Northern Europe and similar regions is wrong,
http://ceolas.net/#li11x
These sort of "
energy guzzling heat wasting" statements are of course
also intended to show incandescents as a useless lighting choice.
Not only is the light quality of incandescents arguably better,
and at least offers an alternative consumer choice,
but
"efficiency" is not just about
"energy efficiency":
It is much easier and cheaper to construct a
bright incandescent light bulb than a bright CFL or LED bulb:
Thus the
irony of the early ban on bright 100 Watt light bulbs
http://ceolas.net/#li7x
5.
"It's time to replace 100 year old incandescent technology!"
If it ain't broke, don't fix it:
The technology of a regular incandescent light bulb is also simple, safe and proven technology,
compared to the newer, more complex, less known, questionably safe alternatives
(CFLs with mercury and radiation issues, LEDs with lead and arsenic issues, even Halogen bulbs with potential Bromine and Iodine gas issues).
http://ceolas.net/#li18eax (CFLs),
http://ceolas.net/#li20ledax (LEDs)
All lighting has usage advantages.
Energy saving is not the only advantage a product can have.
Incandescent lighting, including "old" simple regular incandescent lighting, has several specific usage
advantages.
Welcoming the new does not mean having to ban the old.
The development of
new desirable lighting technology is helped, not hindered, by the continued existence of popular cheap competition, as covered below.
Notice that CFL and LED technology were developed in the presence of cheap incandescents.
Notice also that in fact
standards must be set so that
existing lighting technology meets the standards - or people might literally be left in the dark!
6.
"Society is full of product standards!
Manufacturers stopped making 8 track music systems, LPs, cassettes, and much else, whatever about consumer wishes!"
Certainly, but they were not
banned.
"Energy guzzling" radio tubes/valves and "energy saving" transistors are a good case in point, also because of the similarity of incandescents to tubes, and of LEDS (light emitting diodes) to transistors.
The tubes were not banned, and still retain a usefulness for some applications.
Essay on Standards and Markets
http://ceolas.net/#cc203x
7.
"But the major light bulb manufacturers sought and welcomed this ban!"
Manufacturers are happy to switch to production of energy saving lighting, "to save the planet".
Good. Nothing stopping them!
Except, of course, that they "need" to make sure no popular cheap competition is allowed.
Why do they welcome being told what they can or can't make?
Would
you welcome being told what you can make? If so, why?
GE, Osram, Philips manufacturers already cooperated to ensure profitability from
short lifespans. The
Phoebus cartel ensured that the 1000 hour standard incandescent lifespan endures today.
Now, they move in on
price, as seen admitting a greater profitability also with (unrealistically lab tested) claimed CFL/LED lifespans - as documented and
referenced, also regarding the lobbying activities.
The industrial politics behind the ban is covered here:
http://ceolas.net/#li1ax
There is nothing wrong in manufacturers seeking profits - what is wrong is handing them the profits on a plate.
Politicians should if anything do the
opposite, seek to increase rather than reduce competition between manufacturers and different products - a competition stimulation which also happens to reduce society energy use more effectively than regulations, see below.
the
local jobs issue:
The EU ban legislating European Commission acknowledged the thousands of European light bulb manufacturing job losses resulting from the ban
http://ceolas.net/#li21x.
Similarly, American jobs have already been lost from plant closures.
The pushed CFL and LED replacements are principally made in China (in whole, or for re-assembly and re-branding).
Incandescent-related jobs with major manufacturers may eventually have been lost anyway, but regulations hasten the move, and it should be noted that any light bulb manufacture start-up is made less likely when it must meet energy usage standards that make the light bulbs (incandescent or otherwise) more complex and difficult to make.
Moreover, locally made simple bulbs environmentally reduce energy and CO2 emissions in both manufacture and transport.
8.
"But we should still target light bulb use!"
Why are simple incandescent light bulbs being banned?
They are not being banned for being unsafe to use, like lead paint
(ironically it's the pushed replacement bulbs that might be unsafe to use).
No, the reason for banning bulbs is simply to
reduce energy consumption.
After all - as regulation proponents keep saying -
"We are not banning the bulbs, we are setting
energy usage limitations on them!".
So, if any light bulb policy at all is needed (doubtful):
Taxation-Subsidies
Taking a "liberal" left-wing stance, how do governments usually reduce consumption, at least outside the USA?
Note the massive potential Government income from taxation,
say on coal, electricity from coal, any electricity, or on individual products, to appropriately reduce energy consumption, compared to legislating what consumers can or can't buy and use.
Buildings, cars, TV sets, washing machines etc as well as light bulbs have or will increasingly have bans on them, based on energy use, in the USA, the EU, and probably elsewhere, on current plans.
Yet, just to look at light bulbs:
1 1/2 - 2
billion annual pre-ban sales of relevant incandescent light bulbs in the USA as in the EU shows the potential Government taxation income from them
alone.
What do regulations give governments in direct income? Nothing.
Meanwhile, consumers keep choice and are "
not just hit by taxes",
in that tax money can also go to
lower the prices of energy saving alternatives.
Also:
It is much easier to
implement and to
alter taxation, and easier to
flexibly apply it to new products that change the market situation, than clumsy one-set-standard regulations that need to have complex bureaucratic worked-out replacements (look at the light bulb
regulations on the website!).
It is also easier to
remove taxation when deemed no longer to be needed (eg when sufficient low emission energy is available), without having to restart the abandoned manufacture of products, as with regulation.
Light bulb taxation examples:
http://ceolas.net/#li23x
Taxation is still wrong and unnecessary, for similar reasons to regulations.
They are just a better alternative - arguably also for those who now favor regulations.
There is a still better alternative...
Stimulation of free market competition
This is the
best option
also to lower energy consumption, all the way along the energy usage chain:
Firstly, because electricity producers, just like manufacturers, are then more keen to keep down
their own energy usage and cost.
Secondly, because manufacturers are then also pushed to deliver energy and cost saving products that the public actually
want (and have
always wanted, and do buy, even when costing more: batteries, cleaning fluids etc imaginately marketed, "expensive to buy but cheap in the long run" - those manufacturers don't run crying to the regulators, seeking to have cheap unprofitable alternatives banned).
New energy saving inventions can always be helped to the market, though not continually supported.
The general advantages of stimulating competition are covered in the website introduction
http://ceolas.net/#b1x and competition related to electricity generation and distribution is covered in sections that follow.
Light bulb manufacturing competition is covered later on the website:
http://ceolas.net/#li23x.
For some expanded discussion of points raised here also see the early blog post
http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/06/big-deception.html
