Canadian MP Cheryl Gallant's Campaign to Stop the Canada Light Bulb Ban

On the theme of the Canada ban covered in the last series of posts,
Canadian MP Cheryl Gallant (website, facebook page) has a campaign going against it.
Interestingly, she is a member of the Government Conservative Party launching the ban.
But rather than her being an odd one out, what is odder is surely that her Conservative Party which otherwise proudly proclaims a "free market" and "free choice" agenda, should back such a state totalitarian measure.
And, yes, it is a "ban", setting standards that don't allow them obviously "bans" them, and supposedly allowed "similar" incandescent (halogen type) alternatives will be banned too on adopting US law, EISA tier 2 2014-2017 final rule requirement of 45 lumens per Watt equating to fluorescent bulbs.

For more details of the Canada Government ban proposal, and a 10 section analysis of it, see the first post of the series.
As mentioned, direct appeal to Government itself is possible, they invite comments via their stated comment line (+1) 613-996-4359 or email equipment@nrcan.gc.ca
While formally finished 19th December that does not mean not being able to still "send a message".

The same applies of course to MP Cheryl's campaign.
Albeit launched just recently, there does not seem to have been any news or updates since then. But it's still ongoing, and an MP of the same party as the Government would presumably have "the ear" of those in charge more than an effort by other people, also in any future attempt at reversing a decision, and signing the petition and supporting the campaign in other ways also gives such a backing of course.

Campaign site: stopthelightbulbban.ca
Petition signing.


Campaign site message:

Safe and Affordable
The incandescent light bulb is safe and affordable.
Starting next January, 75- and 100-watt incandescent light bulbs will become black market items, and by the end of 2014 the same will happen to 40- and 60-watt versions.
Co-sign Cheryl Gallant’s letter to the Ministers of Natural Resources, Health and Environment, and tell the Government to stop the light bulb ban.
Most Canadians do not know light bulbs will be banned. Tell your friends and family at once. Encourage everyone you know to co-sign Cheryl’s letter before it is too late!

Unsafe Disposal
Unlike incandescent lights, which can be disposed of safely in the regular garbage, CFLs contain mercury, which can have significant impacts on both human health and the environment if not disposed of properly. Consequently, these lights are generally not accepted in the regular garbage stream and need to be disposed of using a hazardous waste program.
Proper Disposal 24% Tossed In Regular Garbage 55%

Letter circulated around 14th December

Dear friends,

The countdown is on. Starting January 1, 2014 our federal government will commence the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs. The overwhelming response to the constituency survey on whether or not a further delay in the ban is needed was that the ban should not go ahead at all.

The ban arose from the Kyoto Protocol as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty that sets binding obligations on industrialized countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Although Canada did not ratify the agreement, the ban on incandescent light bulbs stayed on our books.

The main alternative to incandescent light bulbs is the compact fluorescent lamp (CFL). CFL bulbs cost roughly 8 times more than incandescent light bulbs. They contain levels of mercury much higher than that of incandescent light bulbs, and are potentially harmful to humans, animals, and our environment.

Mercury is a neurotoxin, and must be specially disposed of, as it can contaminate water supplies and soil if dumped into landfills. According to Environment Canada the mercury contained in a typical thermometer can contaminate five Olympic-size swimming pools to toxic levels. Less than 10 per cent of CFLs are recycled amongst the tens of millions that are sold each year in Canada.

In a recent stroke of irony Canada signed the UN’s Global Mercury Agreement, which imposes a legally binding pledge to cut atmospheric emissions and environmental releases of mercury, in an international effort to reduce global mercury pollution and protect the environment and human health.

We have 17 days to stop the ban. Will you help me?

Sincerely,

Cheryl

How Regulations are Wrongly Justified
14 points, referenced:
Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.
 

Incandescents: The Real Green Bulbs Also in Canada

As the Canadian comment process finishes, as an American incandescent ban largely finishes on January 1, and as the EU review process also seems to have concluded in its first phase, some concluding remarks to the last series of posts seems apt.

The ban, not just on light bulbs but on much else in society, is largely driven by 2 aspects, supposed savings and product progress. Both have been well covered, but product progress deserves extra mention in an overall conclusion.

Product progress?
Product progress arises from increased, not decreased, market competition.
Energy saving progress in particular has been continuous throughout history.
Fluorescents and LEDs? On the market, without bans.
Solid state transistors replacing incandescent tubes? On the market, without bans.

Light bulb manufacturers could themselves simply stop making the "terrible incandescents".
That's what the very same companies normally do in the name of progress, they already stopped making cassettes, video cartridges, 8-track systems and much else.
Certainly they got - and get - lots of taxpayer subsidy goodies to make alternative bulbs while still slapping their own patents on them for yet more profit, and certainly politicians feel obliged to further help out their subsidised buddies sell more bulbs (as the Canadian proposal says, in so many words, in justifying bans because of committed investments).

The supposed problem is therefore that idiot citizens choose not to replace all their existing bulbs with the pushed alternatives, disregarding that most citizens - as the ban brigade keep saying - indeed have bought some for the advantages that they of course also have.

Of course, politicians don't want to declare their voting citizens to be idiots in what they choose to buy. Not openly, anyway. So the roundabout talk is that
"Regulations force faster development of better new products":
"Better" always being energy saving in usage with disregard to all else, including overall savings.
Obviously by necessity this brings new alternatives, but it is development that aims to fill the gap of popular incandescents - look at all the LED incandescent bulb clones. Hardly true or exciting progress.
As said, intrinsic advantages are of incandescents as bulbs, fluorescents as tubes, and LEDs as sheets, and was the original development of the latter 2 products, before all the push to compromise them as bulbs (yes, still with advantages of their own technology, but hardly developed as such now in bulb format, eg the flexible color temperatures of RGB LEDs rather than White LED bulbs).

A further issue is that regulation cut off standards don't just ban what exists. It bans all that could have existed, and never will, despite possible advantages beyond consumption of energy in usage. This, as with all else, is the case not just with light bulbs in the worldwide totalitarian definition of progress.


Everyone can have different legitimate views of the necessity of targeting products to save energy.
But what is then surprising is the complete lack of analysis of alternative policies.
Politicans? Media? Total silence.

Alternative information, taxation, market policies as thoroughly covered in the last post.
As the most fervent political, media and lobby grouped ban supporters tend to have a green or left-wing persuasion, the avoidance of all consideration of taxation is particularly puzzling. Even a mid-size 35 million country like Canada has well over 100 million in relevant sales, while in pre-ban USA and EU it runs into 2 billion sales in each case, of a cheap easily taxable product with high turnover, that could help all the " public spend" measures these people want.
In the USA, the California government is bankrupt - yet, like Canadian British Columbia, they ban every product in sight, instead of taxing it, and could of course announce it as subsidising cheaper alternatives re any "we hate tax" issue.
The point is not that tax is good. The point is that it is arguably better than bans for those who favor bans, while the market stimulation alternative is still better on the argumentation given, if light bulb targeting is (dubiously) deemed necessary.



So, to turn it all around.
Green is a color with many hues!

The case for looking at incandescents as the true environmentally friendly bulbs has been made earlier here.

That can be expanded on, and also put into a Canadian context, given the last series of posts here. The following is based on section 10 of the reply to the Canadian proposal for January 1 regulations on light bulbs, but as seen, it is generally applicable everywhere...

M'Lords and Ladies, the case for the humble simple incandescent light bulb:


Efficient?
Certainly efficient, in making bright light using few components


Earth Saving?
Certainly sparing the earth much mining for minerals


Long Lasting?
Certainly they can last long, at least to 20,000 hours at low price, as shown by mentioned small manufacturers, when major manufacturers don't control the markets.


Sustainable?
Certainly sustainable, in being easily locally made generic patent-free bulbs,
without much transport of parts or product, and without needing recycling.


Incandescents don't burn coal and they don't give out CO2 or other emissions.
Power plants might - and might not.
If there is a Problem - deal with the Problem.

Electrical products are only indirectly coupled to any energy source use, and in turn, the main evening-night time use of incandescent bulbs really only consume small amounts of off-peak surplus capacity electricity anyway, as seen.

Power plant emissions are decreasing on present policies, both from alternative source use and in directly being reduced and treated in various ways. Small overall off-peak bulb use and coal power plant night cycle operational factors reduces if not eliminates supposed bulb ban emission savings, and in a country like Canada of 86% emission-free electricity a ban even increases emissions on the heat replacement effect.



Incandescent light bulbs:
A pointless very visual feel-good target for an agenda driven ban seeking to ensure that the world loses the simplest cheapest product it ever had to produce light from electricity,
an aesthetically pleasing versatile invention, whose doom would arise not from being unpopular, but from being popular, through the stupidity that passes for global governance.




How Regulations are Wrongly Justified
14 points, referenced:
Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.
 

Canada and Nordic Countries: Incandescent Light Bulb Usage Advantages

... it's about a lot more than the heat of incandescent bulbs!

Update info: Campaign against the ban by Ontario MP Cheryl Gallant:
stop the ban page (with petition), facebook page

See the last post.
It focuses on policy aspects of the Canada Government proposal to switch to USA standards.
A main claim is that Halogens "similar to traditional bulbs" will still be allowed, but they will be banned under US law as referenced, and the Government proposal itself speaks of further standard restrictions being facilitated.
While section 3 will remain there, having already linked to it in correspondence etc, it and some other sections have a general informative aspect so may be further highlighted separately.

To recap:
This is part of a reply to the Canadian Natural Resources Government Ministry, Office of Energy Efficiency, concerning the Canada Gazette Vol. 147, No. 40 — October 5, 2013 published proposal on Light Bulb Regulations to be effective as from Jan 1 2014,
and the invitation to comment by December 19th.


Below is seen section 3 of the following:

1. Why Alignment to USA will also ban Halogens
2. What is good for Canadian Industry, Jobs and Consumers?
3. How Incandescents have particular Advantages for Canadians
4. Simple Incandescent Advantages versus Halogens
5. On Energy saving for the Nation
6. On Emission saving for the Planet
7. On Money saving for the People
8. Worldwide Policy and Major Manufacturers
9. Alternative Policies targeting Light Bulbs
10.Incandescents - the Real Green Bulbs?

Full version:  As Doc    As PDF



3. How Incandescents have particular advantages for Canadians

First, a summary of general advantages of Incandescents, then particular advantages to Canadians.


General incandescent advantages

A high quality 100% CRI (color rendering index) light with a warm characteristic: Incandescent lights have a smooth broad light spectrum, which in ordinary light bulbs rises more towards the red end, giving the characteristic warm glow, increased on dimming (fluorescent and LED lights give out different types of light...LEDs also in car headlamps, bicycle lights, flashlights/torches, sees an often bluey omnidirectionally weaker but point source glare type of lighting taking over in society).

The light bulbs have for many a pleasing simple appearance, and the transparency sparkle effect makes their use in some lamps, lanterns, and chandeliers attractive.
They are versatile with dimmers and sensors, advantageous where vibration or rough use is expected, and in very hot or cold conditions when they are also quick to come on. Moreover, the heat of the light bulbs (of itself often useful) finds direct applications in space heating applications, greenhouses, hatcheries, pet keeping etc.
Converse arguments note the situational disadvantages in particular of CFLs, for example in recessed and enclosed fixtures or humid (bathroom) situations



The brightness issue

Small and standard size incandescent lights are particularly useful, since CFL or LED equivalents usually can't be made as bright, and when they can they are even more expensive than usual.

The early ban on small/standard 100 Watt bulbs is therefore particularly ironic, added to by any future absence of halogens.
Such bulbs have especially good and cheap brightness as well as heat benefit, with 100W bulbs being at the same low price as other bulbs (and yes, that is also a reason they "must" be banned quickly based on what people might otherwise want to buy, such that big "savings" can be announced instead).

Fluorescent and LED lights, often dim to start with, also dim more with age, shortening lab quoted lifespans.
Fluorescent encapsulation (with pear shaped outer envelope, recommended for close use) further reduces brightness, similarly the phosphorescent covering of LEDs to spread the point-source lighting reduces brightness in any direction.
Cheap Chinese imports, directly or for assembly and rebranding, also mean that brightness retention, lifespan and other issues remain with these lights.
Any older reader might like (or not like) to note that not only do older eyes need brighter light, but ageing also means yellowing eye lenses so that they absorb the greater blue light component of fluorescents and LEDs, making them appear still dimmer.
Je vous souhaite la retraite agréable.



Safety issues

Normally products are banned for being unsafe to use.
The irony here is that old and thereby well known bulbs in their safety are forcibly, albeit gradually, replaced by CFL and LED bulbs with several health, safety, and environmental concerns.
There is little point in going through the concerns here which can easily be found in online discussion and documentation -
especially regarding fluorescent lighting mercury and radiation concerns, which after all also influenced the 2 year regulatory delay in Canada. Those issues have of course not simply gone away, including accidental breakage of CFLs and their recycling as alternative to being dumped (and with some calls for LED recycling too, see below).
A point of irony is the light bulb heat issue.
Irony, because politicians and journalists and indeed the info sheets from the OEE (Canada Gov office of energy efficiency) love to say how incandescents "waste 90-95% of their energy as heat", never a word that CFLs also waste 70-80% and current LEDs 50-70% of their energy this way.
Irony, because while much incandescent heat is radiated externally to potential use, CFL and LED is internalized, with unpredictable fire risk, especially of CFLs (incandescent heat being more noticeable in burning lampshades and the like, to warn users).

Not only do incandescents often usefully release around 95% of their energy as heat:
Proponents conveniently "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).

A brief further word on LEDs, as the touted catch-all replacement product.
Just to mention 2 aspects and 2 institutional references.
The official French health agency ANSES in a 2010 multi-disciplinary study highlighted point source glare and blue light radiation issues and various side-effects, echoed by several other studies, and unusually in a repeat call 2013 complained to the Commission that nothing was being done.
Similarly the Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of California, USA has been involved in several multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional and international (Korea) studies concerning the toxicity and environmental effects of LEDs, including depletetion of rare earth minerals, and calling for recycling as with CFLs.



Certainly, new technology should be welcomed for its advantages.
But it does not necessitate banning the old - it seems remarkably hard for politicians to understand that manufacturers themselves can and do move on the new products, without the necessity of bans, and that there are many other ways both of reducing energy consumption in general and of enhancing energy saving product purchase in particular.

Progress is welcomed - not feared.
True progressive politics brings more choice and more advantages, a progress helped - not hindered - by allowing competition against that which already exists.

Politicians love to keep saying how "energy saving products are getting better and cheaper all the time".
Good.
Then presumably people might actually buy them - voluntarily - while still allowing niche special use of "old" varieties.
We've witnessed an incandescent to solid state switchover before - and with the same GE, Philips etc companies.
The audio version. Incandescent audio tubes to solid state (LED-like) transistors.
Now then: If that had been today, then worldwide the call would have been to ban the "energy guzzling" audio tubes.
Which in turn would have prevented rock era tube amps and other niche audio processing developments.
Politicians set energy cut-off standards thinking they just ban existing products. But they also ban what might have existed, and never will.

Ergo:
New lighting is better - why ban old lighting, no point
New lighting is not better - why ban old lighting, no point




Incandescent advantages for Canadians

(i) Canadian homes tend to be big in international comparison, with more light bulbs:

Canadian around 35 light points per home, EU average 20-25 (less in Southern Europe), USA 40-45

Thereby:
• Increased variety of conditions where different lights are useful, so a ban on any lighting type is felt more.
• More individual rooms and lamps with lights that are not often used - reducing supposed running cost savings after buying expensive "energy saving" lighting



(ii) Canadians have a higher need and usage of lighting itself:

• Increased time indoors, including at home, because the homes are bigger, better and more comfortable, related both to the cooler climate and to a greater household wealth, compared with most other countries.
• Increased time indoors, including at home or other situations where the lighting can be chosen, because of colder climate and also because the dark winter season is only partially offset by summer brightness for working Canadians outside vacation times, when some rooms will likely still need to be lit up fairly early



(iii) Canadians more often have cold conditions that can affect the lighting used:

• Incandescent lights come on quickly in the cold. While nowadays CFLs have little delay in ordinary conditions, that does not apply in cold conditions.
LEDs also are more sensitive to ambient temperatures (both hot and cold performance deterioration).
• Cool or cold conditions can combine with other usage factors unsuitable to other lighting, like incompatibility with sensor systems and/or frequent on-off switching, as with hallway and passage areas, bathrooms, outdoor porch and garage lights.
On a more curious note, replacing incandescents with other lighting has reportedly seen Canadian traffic lights being obscured by snow in wintertime, whereas beforehand the incandescent heat would keep the lights clear.



(iv) Canadians particularly benefit from the light bulb heat effect:

• The heat effect, of which more later, gives an overall reduction of energy use to maintain room temperature.
That is not just from being used more than air-conditioning cooling through the year. Even in the summer, when it is dark, it may be cold enough to turn on room heating. Besides incandescents can be changed as desired if conflicting with air conditioning - and may of course be preferred anyway for their other advantages.
• The house insulation factor: Well built Canadian houses that are well insulated, giving a greater light bulb heat benefit compared to more poorly insulated ones elsewhere, as in the UK. The heat from bulbs stays in the room, not escaping through the ceiling.
A point of irony is therefore how governments are increasing home insulation schemes to save on heating, while banning bulbs which, proportionate to small energy use of course, would thereby contribute more to such heating.



(v) Canadians are more likely to enjoy the psychologically warm effect:

Incandescents tend towards the red end of the spectrum, while unmodified fluorescents and LED lighting have more blue light, cooler in effect.
Also, when dimmed, the warm effect of incandescents increases: and people in northern countries like Canada or Nordic Europe are more likely to entertain others in their homes for say dinner parties, possibly also for cultural reasons.
Compare with warmer regions where people go out more to socialize, have no control over such lighting used, and barely use their own home lighting that they can control.



(vi) Canadians are more likely to enjoy bright light:

Having longer darker winters, and generally with less bright conditions than more tropical locations.
100W+ bright equivalent lighting is less easy to make in fluorescent or LED bulb form, is not often available for general household use, and is particularly expensive when it is (and is still not widely possible omnidirectionally with LED bulbs).
The importance is also seen from the existence of SAD, Seasonal Affective Disorder in Northern countries generally, where the lack of light during winter months plays a role as seen from the bright light phototherapy treatment that is involved.

[ Sections 4 to 10 can be seen via doc or pdf download, see top of this page]



How Regulations are Wrongly Justified
14 points, referenced:
Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.
 

Lamp Guide Site: Environment

Also given the recent posts commenting on EU light bulb laws:
A good Lamp Guide.
Aside from much well illustrated practical advice, it also covers health and environmental issues.


Below: the environment section should be viewable








How Regulations are Wrongly Justified
14 points, referenced:
Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.
 

EU Commission Light Bulb Ban Review 5: GWL: 12 Good Reasons to Keep Halogens

Update 27 November. Original post 26 November

For a preliminary report of the November 25 Consultation Forum meeting regarding the commencing review of EU light bulb regulations and involving the EU (European) Commission, national energy efficiency representatives and lighting "stakeholders", see the post published earlier.

Here is another alternative view of the light bulb ban, and of the current issue of allowing halogens or not:
Greenwashing Lamps, like Rik Gheysens in the last post, once again usefully complements what was said in the comments to the first Commission proposal post in the series, this time with a very visual perspective.

The Greenwashing Lamps blog post itself summarizes the proposal. Then it links to the pdf document as also reproduced below (alternative copy).


12 Good Reasons for keeping Tungsten Halogen






A text-only extract of the last sections of the above, themselves well illustrated in the original:

9. Lifespan
• CFLs may, under optimal cicumstances, last from 5 000 to 15 000 hours depending on model.
• LEDs are often claimed to last 20 000 hours or more. A clear advantage when long life is desired.
• Halogen lamp life is typically 2 000 hours for standard models. However, it is quite possible to make halogen lamps that last 10 000 hours. Such lamps already exist on the market.
• Standard incandescent bulbs typically last 1 000 hours, but can also easily be made to last up to 20 000 hours by simple improvements to sensitive parts. Such lamps already exist (in the U.S.).



10. Lower Environmental Impact
New research in January 2013 by scientists in California and South Korea found that:
“The CFLs and LEDs have higher resource depletion and toxicity potentials than the incandescent bulb due primarily to their high aluminum, copper, gold, lead, silver, and zinc.
Comparing the bulbs on an equivalent quantity basis with respect to the expected lifetimes of the bulbs, the CFLs and LEDs have 3–26 and 2–3 times higher potential impacts than the incandescent bulb, respectively.”

Halogen Eco lamp (simple to make and recycle)
• Quartz glass & soda-lime glass
• Tungsten (wire filament)
• Molybdenum, copper, iron or nickel (metal/wires)
• Bromine or iodine (halogen gas)

CFL-i (complex to make and recycle)
• Soda-lime glass
• PBT or PET (brominated polymer) plastic housing
• Nickel-plated brass base
• Aluminum, copper, nickel, tin and/or zinc base or wires
• Lead oxide, aluminium oxide
• Barium/aluminum oxide compounds, manganese (phosphor mix)
• Lanthanum, yttrium oxide or phosphate (rare earths)
• Mercury (vapour or amalgam)
• Lead (solder)
• Krypton-85 (gas)

LED lamp (complex to make and recycle)
Anode, cathode, semiconductor crystal, ballast, socket transformer, capacitor, controller, heat sink, LED module, bulb and base may contain:
• Soda-lime glass
• PMMA, PBT or PET (fire retarded/brominated plastic)
• Aluminium (heat sinks and housings)
• Nickel-plated brass (lamp bases)
• Bauxite (glass and adapters)
• Copper (adapters and wiring)
• Lead (glass and adapters)
• Nickel, zink (adapters)
• Tin (adapters; glass coatings)
• Lanthanum, yttrium oxide, manganese, barite (phosphor mix)
• Semiconductors (depending on colour): Arsenic, boron, gallium,
indium, phosphate rock, selenium, zinc

Low-lumen LEDs (= majority of LEDs available for the home market) use as much precious resources as high-lumen lamps but for very little light. LEDs are most effective when over 800 lumens and used for many hours per day. They are not suitable as low-lumen lamps as the light quality is too low.




11. Different Lighting Technologies
All lighting technologies have their advantages in different situations.
• Incandescent & halogen lamps, where light quality is most important, e.g. at home, in fashion stores, galleries, restaurants, hotels etc.
• CFLs, LEDs, fluorescent tubes, HID lamps where light quantity is of higher priority than quality, e.g in offices, corridors, garages, or as outdoor lighting; when lighting is turned on all day or all night.

Incandescent and luminescent light sources are not interchangable.
They have very different technical properties and light qualities. No matter how much luminescent (phosphor-based) light is improved, it can never be the same as fire-based light, anymore than brass can ever be gold, or rayon silk. It’s a different product; superficially similar and useful in other ways, but still not the same.

A CFL can often be replaced by an LED or metal halide HID lamp of the same colour temperature and socket. They are all phosphor-based and have similar CRI and light quality.

A frosted incandescent lamp cannot be replaced by a CFL or frosted LED without changing and lowering the light quality, or by or clear halogen without changing functionality.
A frosted incandescent lamp can only be replaced by a frosted halogen lamp for the same glare-free top quality light.

A clear halogen lamp cannot be replaced by a CFL or LED without lowering the light quality and changing functionality.
Clear halogen A-bulbs, R7 tubes, G4 and G9 mini bulbs have no replacements.




12. Health & Wellness
Light is an essential bio-nutrient, just like water, food and air.
Physiologically, light regulates hormones. Visually, it helps us see well when there is no daylight.
Psychologically, it is one of the most potent mood enhancers at the disposal of an interior designer, home maker or professional lighting designer.

A clear, top quality, naturally dimmable light that is not too cold or dull, is of essence in order to be able to see well and relax in our own homes at night.
Banning halogen lamps is like banning silk or cotton and forcing everyone (including those who are allergic to them) to use only synthetic fibre because the latter fabrics are considered more durable.
We all want to save the environment, but there are many other ways to easily save the little that could theoretically be gained by banning halogen lamps.


  [there are plenty of reference links to the below points in the pdf document, not coded in here]
All currently available lamps are needed, except CFLs and high pressure mercury lamps which can and should be replaced due to mercury risk, and ‘cool white’ (light blue) LEDs which may harm vision and disrupt sleep hormones.

• Standard halogen Eco bulbs must remain available for those:
- who need bright light of good quality in order to see well (= most people over 60)
- who prefer or need the highest light quality (= many women, artists, photographers etc)
- who have light-sensitive eye- or skin conditions (= c. 25% of the population?)
- for whom CFLs may be hazardous due to mercury spill risk (children & pregnant women)
- for whom LEDs may be hazardous due to blue light risk (= children & people with ARMD)

• As there are no top quality frosted replacements, frosted halogen A-bulbs should be permitted again for those who are sensitive to glare (= e.g. many seniors, migraine patients etc).

• And as there are no good quality replacements for the R7 tubes and, G4 or G9 halogen mini bulbs, these must remain available for those who have invested in costly halogen downlight, floodlight, spotlight, or dimming systems because they wanted the best light on the market.

So please let EU citizens be free to choose from an open market what type of light quality they want to use in their own homes.

Thank You!

How Regulations are Wrongly Justified
14 points, referenced:
Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.
 

EU Commission Light Bulb Ban Review 4: Rik Gheysens

Update 28 November with extracts and comment section   Original post: 25 November

To continue the reaction to the EU proposals as detailed previously, some other voices, as promised.

Belgian researcher Rik Gheysens has a good bilingual website (version in Dutch here) with plenty of documentation, particularly on fluorescent lighting and problems.
Includes an excellent extensive EU Q and A section, with questions put by EU MPs to the Commission also on the light bulb ban in general, and the answers received.

He has in the last week also covered the light bulb ban review in depth with a critical analysis - which in many ways complements the comments made here in the earlier post, in going more deeply into CFL and mercury issues and also LED environmental problems.


As should be seen below, the press release document (pdf, alt copy). If the view looks messy, try clicking on it to reduce the internal page size etc (seems to work differently in different browsers and their various versions).
As always, downloading the document may work better.






Comment

While much focuses on CFLs and mercury - and for the understandable quoted reasons - it is my belief that the Commission and lighting companies are actively moving away from such lighting: The recent Commission proposal, as linked above and in the document itself, hardly mentions CFLs and the LightingEurope (Philips, Osram, GE etc) statement as previously posted also entirely focuses on the "Ledification" of society.

This is likely also borne out by Commissioner Oettinger's statement, as in the document:

Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

The regulation is to be reviewed by 2014.
That will be the time to consider how the EU framework for energy saving lighting should be further developed. In the meantime, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that, under Directive 2011/65 (2), the mercury content of Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL) in the EU was halved as from January 2013 to a maximum of 2.5 mg (compared to 50 milligrams in cell batteries and 500 milligrams in amalgam dental fillings)

Halving the allowable mercury content makes fluorescent lighting still harder to make with acceptable performance for a given price - which perhaps is the intention, moving towards a "de facto" ban, just as with energy usage standards on incandescents, without actually calling it a "ban".
Personally, while understanding the health, environmental and other arguments against fluorescent lighting, I find it a shame to ban any lighting, and I remain (very) unconvinced that the Commission is doing this out of some bleeding-heart-sympathy-for-consumers.
The greater profitability including self-admitted heavy EU subsidisation (see EU proposal) of LED manufacture has the Commission-Manufacturer tandem working nicely again.


The LED section of the document should therefore also be noted.
Again good points, with plenty of new references not used in this blog before.
As for health, environmental and light quality issues with LEDs, also see the preceding posts in this blog, with illustrations and references.

Some slight editing of the below quote:

Light-emitting diodes

- These lights have a continuous spectrum.

- They have a CRI of only 80-85. Nick Farraway, international sales manager at Soraa, wants a CRI of 95 or greater. But he agrees that it will be difficult and at high costs. [http://ledsmagazine.com/features/10/10/10]

- They have a power factor of 0.5 –0.9 for lamps between 5W and 25W.

- They contain rare earth metals.

- They have a very complex manufacture and the disposal needs special measures.

- They have a spectral imbalance within the blue:
The white light of LEDS has generally a blue peak, which makes it unsuitable to use it at evening. Medical research indicates that blue light is very effective in reducing naturally occurring human melatonin levels. The real impact of light depends on three features: color, intensity and duration.
Melatonin secretion is reduced to 50% after:
  - 403 hours of exposure to an monochromatic RED light at 100 lux
  - 66 min to a candle
  - 39 min to a 60W incandescent bulb
  - 15 min to a 58W daylight fluorescent lamp
  - 13 min to a pure white high-output LED
(Angeles Rol de Lama, e.a., Contaminación lumínica y salud: El lado oscuro de la luz, Dpto. Fisiologia, Universidad de Murcia)

- SCENIHR [ed- the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, link] shows the following opinion:
Despite the beneficial effects of light, there is mounting evidence that suggests that ill-timed exposure to light (light-at-night), possibly through circadian rhythm disruption, may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer and also cause sleep disorders, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular disorders, and possibly affective states. Importantly, these effects are directly or indirectly due to light itself, without any specific correlation to a given lighting technology.(SCENIHR, 2012, p. 59)We disagree with this last sentence.

- When dimming a LED,some problems may arise.
(More information in Review study, p. 71-72)

- The lifetime of the LEDs depends on the temperature of the junction and the electric current intensity, without forgetting the quality of production and integration. At present, the definition of the lifetime of a LED and the measuring method are not standardized.
(Effets sanitaires des systèmes d’éclairageutilisant des diodes électroluminescentes (LED), Rapport d'expertise collective, Octobre 2010, p. 40)
The heat is "enemy No. 1" of LEDs, more specifically of white LEDs. LED operation at too high a temperature (and therefore high junction temperature of the semiconductor) has a dramatic effect on efficiency but also on other characteristics and performance of LEDs such as the flux, the spectrum (and thus the color), the polarization voltage, and the life. To take advantage of the interesting properties of LED (flux, efficiency, durability, quality of light emitted), integrators must take into account the heat generated by the LED and qualities of this component to evacuate the heat.(Ibid., p. 207)

- High luminance: (i.e. the high brightness density per surface unit emitted by these very small sources.) LEDs are point sources of light that can be aggregated in lighting units to achieve high luminous flux. Because the emission surfaces of LEDs are highly concentrated point sources, the luminance of each individual source produces very high luminance, at least 1 000 times higher (107cd/m2) than that from a traditional lighting source.

- Stroboscopic effect: Depending on their architecture, the electrical power supplied to LED lighting systems can vary, causing fluctuations in the intensity of the light produced that are more or less perceptible to the naked eye.
(Opinion of the French Agency for food, environmental and occupational health & safety in response to the internally-solicited request entitled "Health effects of lighting systems using light-emitting diodes (LEDs)"19 October 2010)

- The number of EU citizens with light-associated skin disorders that would be affected by exposures from CFLs was estimated in the report to be around 250,000. Clearly, the risk for this group of patients is not limited to CFLs, but includes all light sources with significant UV/blue light emissions. The lack of proper data precludes any improvement of the estimate of the size of the affected group.
(SCENIHR, 2012, p. 11) It is a shame that without further knowledge of the effects of LEDs, the precautionary principle is not applied.

- Because the lemon and primrose yellow are extra sensitive to blue and green, it is risky to illuminate some artworks with LEDs due to the high proportion of blue light. LEDs can damage the paintings of great masters!
(Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant, 4 January 2013)

- The luminous efficiency of LEDs was estimated between 4.2 and 14.9%.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy#Overall_luminous_efficacy]

How Regulations are Wrongly Justified
14 points, referenced:
Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.
 

EU: Allow Frosted Halogen Bulbs!

Last update 24 November. Original post 22 November

Earlier posts in this series have dealt with the EU review of the light bulb ban, with the details of the EU proposal concerning the future of halogens in the first post.

Recent very good comments on other websites, which I will expand on shortly, include:
• Rik Gheysens with a special press release (pdf, alt copy). This complements earlier posts here in particularly covering the health and environmental effects relating to CFLs and LEDs.
• The Greenwashing Lamps contribution, again with documentation (pdf, alt copy) including well laid out photographic comparisons of using LEDs compared to Halogens, showing the latter in a much better light, as it were.


Clearly the position of this blog is that restrictions on all lighting and indeed other products should be lifted, which are not connected with danger in their use but simply to reduce energy consumption, itself better achieved in other ways.

But the focus at this time is on halogens:
The initial part of the review process deals with the stage 6 proposed ban on remaining halogen replacement bulbs.
As seen from the posts, it seems likely that at least some halogen lighting will be allowed to continue:
But if so, the type of allowed bulbs should be considered.

Specifically, the ban on frosted (non-clear) halogen and similar energy efficient incandescent bulbs should be lifted.
Frosted (matte, pearl) light bulbs and their more opaque (white, opal, soft-tone) varieties generally go by the name "non-clear" bulbs in legal EU terminology:
In comparison with clear, transparent light bulbs the brightness in lumen output and thereby the energy efficiency varies slightly depending on the luminescence of the coating and its thickness, 5-10% either way.
That is, frosted bulbs can be brighter than clear varieties.

The EU research report itself mentions this, by one of the consultants behind it.

Paul van Tichelen replies that we have to make distinction between clear and frosted equivalent.
A clear lamp is always in the lower lumen output.
The lamps we found with above 800 lumen output were for frosted lamps (higher lumen output than clear lamps).

[Note: "(higher lumen output than clear lamps)" albeit emphasized, is the original quote, it is not a comment addition]
Clear LED lamps as referred to more commonly have lower brightness than clear incandescents in comparison with their respective alternatives, but the overall point remains.

The outsider might therefore be reasonably perplexed why the EU - and the EU as sole worldwide jurisdiction - banned frosted lighting in the first place.

Frosted bulbs are, or were, the dominant form of incandescents desired by consumers, especially in Northern Europe (90% of pre-ban incandescent sales, Philips/Osram data). They spread the light more evenly and reduce the point-source glare of clear bulbs.

As always, the irony of popularity making Commission people happier to ban, for supposed greater savings.
No point in banning what people don't want to buy!
Accordingly, in their memorandum to the original 2009 legislation, the Commission stated that those "who want non-clear lamps can buy CFLs and LEDs", presumably feeling that it would help push people to those lighting types, and ignoring all other aspects of why a particular form of lighting is chosen.

But the case here remains a peculiar one.
At least the bans on regular incandescents (and certain TV sets, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, etc)
are straightforward "legitimate" bans in terms of energy efficiency standards.

The ban on frosted bulbs, in this case halogens, is pure Orwellian social engineering, without justification in itself,
and without comparison in any other countries.
Will that make the European Commission think again, on the grounds of (shock, horror) showing some magnanimity to consumers and their choices?
Is the moon a balloon?




Making a "light connection" to add to the above...





As always, when politicians and their bureaucrat cronies come up with petty pointless bans, people will try and get around them.
Hence, in this case, the famous (infamous) euro-condoms, as thought up by lighting designer Ingo Maurer, and as covered in earlier posts on this blog:

Screwing the EU with a Condom
Screwing the EU with a Condom... again



How Regulations are Wrongly Justified
14 points, referenced:
Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.
 

What We Will Never See

When politicians set standards that ban products, they think of existing products.


1. Normally bans are made on products deemed dangerous to use.

Few would object to the ban on paint containing lead - on the basis that danger is danger, no matter what usage advantages such a product might have. Yet even in such cases, it rules out the development of products that bind the dangerous substances in various ways, rendering them more safe - and it bans them regardless of future chemical advances that might have allowed it, even though not possible at the time of the ban. Therefore, while the bans obviously have to be implemented, they should always be open to review, and research grants into the uses of lead, asbestos, mercury and other substances not be blocked on the basis of unlikely product development.
Such research would take 2 factors into account: The likely possibility of mitigating the danger, chemically or by other means, and the likely advantage of any researched and developed product outcome, versus existing products on the market.

In terms of lighting one might then think of fluorescent lighting and mercury content.
Most who are against the ban on incandescents are unhappy with fluorescent replacements, and many have called for an alternative ban on such products instead.
Ironically, it now looks as if fluorescents will be banned or at least phased out and discouraged from sale, not instead of incandescent bans, but as well.

Two good blog posts on the issue on Kevan Shaw's blog:
International Mercury Convention Picks Wrong Lighting Target (Jan 2013)
In Praise of Fluorescent Lighting (July 2012)

LED is the new Holy Grail:
Certainly useful, but rather pointlessly developed and given prizes for expensively cloning incandescents as white LEDs, rather than in a main development which complements incandescents (or fluorescents), as RGB LEDs with color temperature flexibility, or as sheet lighting (OLEDs).
The point is that all lighting has specific advantages, for different specific uses.




2. The issue becomes all the greater, when products are banned for reasons other than usage danger.

This blog deals with lighting - but it clearly applies to all bans based on resource use, such as energy and water.

Specifically, energy usage standards are set that effectively ban incandescent lighting.
The standard political motivation is "great to get rid of the old bulbs": politicians, like any other people, are of course perfectly free to like or dislike products.

But standards block the development of any lighting not meeting those standards.
For example, bio-luminescence is a new exciting branch of lighting development, lighting by chemical interaction, with advantageous scenarios. To whatever extent the dimness might be assisted by electrical charge via the grid, this is banned by regulation, if usage exceeds certain parameters.
Relevant research grants, in today's political climate, are already often based on product energy usage - and why not - but grants become all the less likely when an alternatively useful product is unlikely to meet legislative electrical usage standards.

What a strange world:
Lighting products not judged for their lighting.
As with lighting products, so with other products.


Polticians are reactive creatures.
Few - if any - have any form of vision of society development.

What politician has the foresight to understand that standards ban not just what exists - but also what might have come to exist, and never will, regardless of usage advantages.
 

Howard Brandston Appeal Letter

Letter from Howard Brandston 1 October 2012 to New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.
Reproduced by kind permission of the author.

Howard Brandston, as seen from previous posts and the resource links section of the blog, is an internationally highly regarded and experienced lighting designer.
He has as seen been directly involved in Congress US light bulb regulation discussion, as via his participation in several Senate hearings, including the last one on the topic in 2011.

Amidst passionate political debate, let’s not lose sight of the looming incandescent light bulb ban, a grave concern affecting every American’s health, well-being and freedom of choice, regardless of one’s party preference.
This ban is not the result of technological advancements, but instead is the careful orchestration of profit-seeking lamp manufacturers and uninformed ‘Green’ advocates.

The purported benefit of the bulb ban is energy savings – better for us, better for our environment. Nothing is farther from the truth: the incandescent ban is the best big business marketing scheme ever devised.

The truth is dating back to the 1980s when lamp manufacturers introduced residential Compact Flourescent Lamps (CFLs), consumers never really accepted them as demonstrated by poor sales and low corporate revenue. Quality of light; health, safety and environmental issues; shorter than reported life expectancy; poor fit with existing fixtures outline some CFL problems.

The truth is instead of responding to these important consumer issues, lamp manufacturers protected their CFL investment and used the influence and the dollars of their lighting lobbies to pressure the government to ban the competition -- the all-pervasive incandescent light bulb. Their accompanying marketing strategy was brilliant: join the global warming bandwagon.

The truth is lamp manufacturer and government propaganda and misinformation worked. In 2014, the incandescent light bulb will be relegated to the dustbin of history unless consumers really pressure legislators to repeal the ban.

Consumer pressure is working elsewhere around the world. Lighting designers, scientists, and everyday citizens are publicizing the consequences they have endured caused by the mandated ban. The truth is consequences far outweigh benefits. In the US, the amount of money the lobbies have lavished on politicians has sustained the planned ban to date. Only a groundswell of consumer revolt will restore common sense and protect our freedom to live our lives in safety.


Howard M. Brandston, FIES, Hon. FCIBSE & FSLL, FIALD
www.concerninglight.com

Howard Brandston is an internationally recognized expert on lighting for more than 50 years most well known for lighting the Statue of Liberty.

For more on Howard's writing on light bulb regulation issues,
see http://concerninglight.com/commentary.html
 

EU MEP Questions to European Commission

As seen in the last post, Kevan Shaw linked to Belgian researcher Rik Gheysens' website, specifically to Rik's comprehensive listing of questions raised by European Union MEPs about the incandescent ban and replacement lighting, and the Commission answers.

Rik's website as seen also covers overall regulatory developments in the EU, US and elsewhere with a focus on CFL (compact fluorescent lamp) issues, in particular mercury toxicity.

Some question examples - the answers are also linked on the page, but unsurprisingly are rather evasive and non-committal.

"Question mark CFL" ...source unknown

European MEP Questions: Extracts
"The European Union has set itself the target of cutting its overall energy consumption by 20 % by the year 2020.
One of the means of achieving this was to be the replacement of conventional light bulbs by energy-saving bulbs.
The conclusion of a study by American scientists publicised in the British magazine The Economist is, however, that in the longer term energy-saving bulbs will not cut energy consumption, but may on the contrary increase it. This thus confirms the so-called Jevons paradox: that innovations that produce energy savings result in the long run in higher energy use.

Is the Commission aware of the study referred to?
What view does it take of its findings and what conclusions does it draw for the EU's current energy efficiency strategy involving a ban on the use of conventional light bulbs?
Does the Commission admit the possibility that the ban on conventional light bulbs and their replacement by energy-saving bulbs will not lead to a reduction in energy consumption in the EU?
Are longitudinal or cross-sectional data already available to indicate whether the ban on conventional light bulbs is leading to a cut in energy in energy consumption in the EU?
If so, what conclusions can be drawn from these data?

[Ironically the rebound greater energy use was also recently cited by the American Examiner paper... in the town of Traer, Iowa some years ago 18,000 free fluorescent bulbs were handed out to its residents in a demonstration project aimed at reducing power consumption. Residential electricity use actually rose by 8 percent, because people used more lights and kept them on longer, once they realized their lighting was cheaper....]



Another Question:

"The regulations on ecodesign — Regulations (EC) No 244/2009 and No 245/2009 — provide for the progressive phasing out of incandescent light bulbs in favour of other products between 2009 and the end of 2012.
Could the Commission provide the studies on which it based these legislative proposals? Could it also say if they are available to the public and, if so, where they can be obtained?

A number of citizens have expressed justifiable concerns with regard to the wisdom of phasing out incandescent light bulbs, notably the following:

Has the Commission taken account of the entire amount of energy consumed in producing and recycling new-generation light bulb?
What is the environmental impact of these light bulbs, which contain highly toxic heavy metals, and how are faulty and spent bulbs to be salvaged?
What are the dangers of dumping bulbs without taking precautions? How can it be ensured that they are really being salvaged and reprocessed?
The white light given off by these new-generation light bulbs is supposedly less healthy than the yellow light of incandescent bulbs; has there been a study comparing the impact of these new bubs with that of previous generations?
New-generation bulbs reportedly give off far stronger electromagnetic emissions than incandescent bulbs. Is the Commission aware of this? If so could it explain why it has chosen to ignore these arguments?

Is there a document available to the public giving, in layman’s terms, their benefit-risk profile and references of studies carried out, with details of their authors, their professions and the organisations to which they belong?

When a decision of this magnitude is taken, is it not reasonable to disclose the facts and studies on which it was based and, more importantly, is it not also reasonable to provide a summary, updated each year, of the benefits sought and the results actually achieved?"



Another Question:

"The Commission said that ‘mercury-free alternatives without any known health impacts, such as improved incandescent bulbs’ were already available today.
What are these ‘improved incandescent bulbs’?
Why does the Commission not take the initiative of promoting these ‘improved incandescent bulbs’, thus putting an end to the risk of mercury contamination by energy-saving lightbulbs?

[Note: The EU Commission love to talk about the halogen type etc "improved" incandescent "alternatives", when in fact they and all other current incandescent replacements for domestic general use will be banned by 2016, which they know full well]



And so on...
many deal with CFL mercury/radiation/disposal issues - some other points, extracts:

"Traditional and halogen light bulbs will gradually be withdrawn from the market.
The withdrawal of these light bulbs from the market has met with criticism and indignation from many consumers...."

"Has the Commission given any consideration to the fact that, with greater use of renewable energy, the consumption of energy by standard light bulbs will not be a serious problem?....."

"Does the European Commission regard the ban as consistent with the subsidiarity principle? Why?..."

"Is the European Commission aware of findings concerning erroneous claims by manufacturers as to the actual savings achieved through the use of energy-saving light bulbs, the low level of illumination they offer, which diminishes even further with use, and their sensitivity to frequent switching on and off?"

"What view does the European Commission take of studies which claim that people living in rooms fitted with energy-saving light bulbs heat those rooms to a temperature two to three degrees higher than they would do otherwise, and is it aware of the volume of additional CO2 emissions which this phenomenon may generate?..."

"Various research projects by the Finnish University of Technology show that in practice all the energy used by incandescent lamps contributes to the heating of the home. Heat produced by incandescent lamps has to be replaced with heating and if the heating uses fossil fuels, the carbon footprint increases. The lower the wattage of the lamp used to replace an incandescent lamp, the greater the need for additional heating. Research shows that if heating uses oil, replacing lamps increases oil consumption.
Similarly, if electricity is used for heating, just as much electricity is used after lamps have been changed as before, because electrical radiators use more. In the case of combined heat and power, the decisive factor is how the electricity and heat are produced. In urban areas in Finland, they often come from the same power station. Changing lamps reduces electricity but increases heat [consumption]. This being so, it is the type of heating that determines the carbon footprint...."

"On 15 May the Austrian news agency APA indirectly quoted a statement by Commissioner Meglena Kuneva on the abolition of conventional light bulbs: ‘Nevertheless, Ms Kuneva presented her viewpoint on the emotional debate being conducted in this country on the replacement of conventional light bulbs by energy-saving light bulbs. To sum up, the politician asked for patience to be shown, as the discussion process was far from over.’
What does Commissioner Kuneva mean by this statement against the background of the timescale for the ‘phasing out’ of conventional light bulbs from trade (cf. Commission Regulation (EC) No 244/2009)?...."

"Just as the ban on 60 watt light bulbs came into force on 1 September 2011, lighting manufacturer Osram also increased its prices for energy-saving light bulbs.
The reason given for the huge price increase was a price rise in rare earth metals, which are required as a raw material...."



A long question comprehensively dealing with the savings issue:

"Since the world's consumption of energy for all lighting needs totals less than two per cent of all energy consumption, why is the Commission attaching so much importance to the introduction of CFL bulbs?
Why is the EU demanding that Britain throw away a lighting technology which is tried-and-tested, safe and silent, and delivers what is needed: good light at full strength at the flick of a switch?
Why are Britons being told (not asked) to replace it with an alternative which is clumsier, more expensive, does not work as well, makes some people ill and could do more environmental harm than good?

Does the Commission not know that one of the side benefits of the present range of bulbs is the heat they generate (as much as 95 %), which reduces the need for other forms of heating?
That heat will be lost by switching to CFL bulbs. It will have to be made up by the increased use of central heating, for example, or electric fires. That in turn will place a higher demand for energy on power stations.

Is the Commission aware that even the British Government admits that the total hoped-for saving would be equivalent to the output of a single small coal-fired power station?

Indeed, does the Commission understand that, assuming it matters, the carbon footprint of CFL bulbs is higher because they contain complex chemicals and electronics which ordinary bulbs do not?
They generate more carbon in the manufacturing process and disposal at the end of their working life is more environmentally and industrially expensive... "


"Can the Commission say precisely how these (savings) figures are calculated?
What percentage of homes in the EU could actually make savings of EUR 1 000 or more by introducing energy efficiency measures?
What is the figure for Germany? What are the figures for the other Member States?
By contrast, how many households are able to make annual savings of less than EUR 500?
How many households could only make savings of less than EUR 200?"



LEDs get a look in, in several questions regarding their rare earth mineral usage, as with CFLs contravening supposed EU environmental policies, also:

"90% of LEDs work according to a process which combines a blue diode with yellow phosphorus to obtain white light. However, this blue light is dangerous for the retina: the various pigments present in its cells can lead to a reaction, causing lesions produced by oxidative stress.

According to the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety, these new lights could be particularly damaging for children, light-sensitive people — including those suffering from certain eye and skin diseases — and exposed professionals (lighting engineers, dentists, etc.).

What measures does the Commission intend to take in order to protect European consumers more effectively from this risk?

Furthermore, it would seem essential to inform them better on this issue. What initiatives does the Commission intend to take in this field?"

source  Mackinac

 

How Bans are Wrongly Justified: New Safety Section

The "How Bans are Wrongly Justified" page has been revised and updated with a point 12 added.

12. "The safety scares of new technology are overblown!"
"CFL mercury? Look at tuna fish mercury, look at the greater coal plant mercury emissions caused by incandescents!"

I would agree with ban proponents that many "scare stories" in the press seem overblown.
That said,
CFLs have fire, mercury and radiation issues,
LEDs have lead and arsenic issues,
and even Halogen incandescent bulbs have potential Bromine and Iodine gas issues.
ceolas.net/#li18eax (CFLs)
ceolas.net/#li20ledax (LEDs, Halogens)

The fluorescent bulbs, CFLs, have been the main proposed replacement given the development issues surrounding LEDs to give omnidirectional bright light at a reasonable unsubsidised (or even subsidised) purchase price.

The most persistent complaints have surrounded CFL mercury content.
Those who want more on this can get plenty here:
The CFL Mercury Issue ceolas.net/#li19x
[Breakage -- Recycling -- Dumping -- Mining -- Manufacturing -- Transport -- Power Plants]

With respect to the common and somewhat odd type of mentioned jibes of "tuna fish" or "coal plants" being worse, clearly "2 wrongs don't make a right":
If there is a Problem - Deal with the Problem.
As it happens, the coal plant story is a bit of a folk tale by now, see end of the coal section, covering the new emission reduction regulations from using new technology. It never was true anyway, and had it been, then comparatively the release from a broken bulb in a room would tend to be a greater worry to those affected than the release from a distant chimney - also from the extensive EPA, DEFRA and other official CFL mercury clean up and disposal recommendations referenced.
The hidden environmental impact of billions of dumped fluorescent bulbs worldwide leeching mercury is only now beginning to concern legislators.


To keep the points here clear and reasonably compact, the radiation and other issues won't be referred to further.
However, the biological/psychological effects of lighting should also be emphasized - not just the direct safety issues.
Incandescent broad spectrum lighting, veering towards the "warm" red part of the spectrum, has been a "natural" evening replacement for the similar light from burning gas, candles, or open fires, for thousands of years.
Suddenly mankind is using more neon, fluorescent (CFL), phosphorescent (white LED)
lighting instead, with more blue light content, even in "warm" color temperature adjusted versions - and moreover, with more uneven spectra, so that unlike with incandescents, some colors are missing in the light given out. The issues have been particularly well researched in Germany, as also covered in the recent Austrian film Bulb Fiction, for example by Dr Alexander Wunsch (more, Google translated).
Also see the well illustrated Gluehbirne.ist.org articles on light spectrum from different lamps and effects, example (Google translated version).
Also see the extensive well referenced Greenwashing Lamps blog post on blue light issues.
While previously mainly related to CFLs, LEDs are also increasingly coming under scrutiny in these light quality aspects. See ceolas.net/#li22ledx. The American LEDs magazine has good coverage, for example this issue.

[ end of point 12 ]


Meanwhile, as seen on lighting designer Kevan Shaw's blog, post by Martin Granese:
Japanese fluorescent tube fighting.
Probably not covered by an Environmental Protection Agency recommendation...

 

'Bye Bye Light Bulb - Do NOT Rest In Peace!'

The Greenwashing Lamps Blog is always worth reading, and is well laid out too.

Here is a fitting tribute to the incandescent bulb, given the "final" ban on regular incandescent type bulbs today in the EU...

"Incandescent Light Quality"

Good Greek Philosophy

 
Having recently seen contributors from around the globe on the light bulb ban, another one, from Greece.

Antonis Christofides, is a developer and system administrator at the Department of Water Resources, School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens (NTUA).
He has also written extensively on climate change, questioning the current man-made supposition. Well worth reading.

Here the focus will be on his paper about the irrelevance of banning bulbs
to save energy for society, or indeed for any other reason.
Source, wider format, same content: http://itia.ntua.gr/antonis/environment/on-banning-the-bulb






Comment

Regarding the lack of energy savings for society, the author makes points familiar to readers of this blog:
See the Deception rundown, energy and coal sections, and the more extensive sections on the lack of society energy or power plant savings on the Ceolas.net site.

What is said about CFLs in the text is usually applicable to LEDs as well.


He makes the good point that any impressive sounding "save 80% energy using CFLs" is part of a very small energy use in the first place, such that the less impressive sounding "save 20% fuel by switching to a small car" is a lot more meaningful in real terms...

Why, then, don't we ban large cars? If people are entitled to drive a car for fun, or to go to the cinema, or to have a large TV, or to choose the temperature they want their home to have, or to fly business class, then why take away my freedom to choose the light that I want? Why force me use a lamp that produces a strange spectrum rather than the pure light of the bulb?

He also makes the good point that the (generously) 1% or so of total energy saved, as also seen from other data in the above references, would not mean "the saving of power plants" as global energy consumption is rising anyway... continuing

We want not only to encourage, but to force people throw away the light bulb, a simple device consisting of harmless materials, that could easily exist 200 years from now no matter what happens at technology and civilization, and replace it with a complicated system with toxic content, that cannot be dimmed with traditional dimmers, and that takes some time to reach its luminosity and is therefore inappropriate for some applications such as corridors and staircases, where you need the light immediately but only for a few seconds.

After noting that cheaper energy use means likely means greater use (not least if, in addition, a greater quantity of the dim bulbs have to be used as well), continuing on a philosophical note....

We use more and more light...
Unfortunately, it is not only the night sky that we are missing, but the beauty of the night itself. That we like darkness is obvious by the fact that, if the light of a street lamp gets too much into our room, we close our window blinds in order to sleep; that we like to go to dimly lit restaurants and bars; and that we love the dim light of candles and fireplaces. And yet the tendency today is to flood our cities with artificial light and eliminate darkness altogether.

He is also perceptive on the profits issue...
making points I have not seen elsewhere.

Certainly profit is one of the driving forces behind the ban.
It is hard for me to believe that the marketing campaign by Siemens is because of their determination to save the environment.

I can make some guesses about why CFLs are profitable for large lamp manufacturers.

First, they are way more expensive. They appear cheap to you because they are subsidized.

My second suspicion is that while small manufacturers have the technology to make incandescent lamps, and therefore compete with large manufacturers, they probably can't make CFLs. Therefore, these guys will likely go out of business and the large manufacturers will get their customers.

My third suspicion is patents. CFLs have about 20 years in the market. This means that the first patents are expiring. But 20 years ago they were much worse than today; they produced very bad light, and they were huge in size. Clearly there have been many developments. Probably the newest patents are no more than 5 years old, which means they will last for at least another 15 years. This means that any small manufacturers who make CFLs will have to pay patent fees to the large manufacturers, who own the patents [another reason they may go out of business].

If someone profits, someone else loses.
And the one who loses is usually you.
In our case, the small manufacturers also lose.
But the result can be a state-enabled cartel of manufacturers: the state has granted these patents, and the state has decided on the ban. Therefore the state enables the cartel. Cartels raise prices. Whether you can feel the higher price when you buy the CFLs, or whether it is included in your taxes in the form of subsidy for CFLs, you are certainly paying more.

But I don't think that profit can explain everything.
I think that the manufacturers, at first, used good marketing, like the alleged 80% savings, to convince consumers to buy the product, and then the environmentalists took it differently, and then the manufacturers saw the opportunity and jumped on.
Huge momentum was created when the manufacturers built upon the environmentalists who built upon the manufacturers, resulting in mass paranoia.

All of us, the wealthy, the poor, the environmentally sensitive, the politicians, are busy buying and banning CFLs, thinking, because of the 80% hype, that we achieve something, when in fact we achieve barely 1%, altogether in global hysteria.