Banning Light Bulbs an Irrelevant Climate Change Measure: German Parliament Report

Energiesparlampen stoppen nicht den Klimawandel
(Energy saving light bulbs can not stop climate change)

From the German Die Welt newspaper
22 September 2012



Introduction:

Der Kampf gegen Klimaerwärmung und Umweltverschmutzung lässt sich allein durch effizientere Technologie nicht gewinnen. Das ist, vereinfacht gesagt, das Ergebnis des Berichts, den die Arbeitsgruppe drei der Bundestags-Enquetekommission Wachstum, Wohlstand, Lebensqualität am Montag vorstellt und der der "Welt" vorliegt.

Auf mehr als 200 Seiten erklären die Autoren, warum Wirtschaftswachstum und Umweltverbrauch derzeit eben nicht voneinander entkoppelt sind. Diese Erkenntnis ist politisch durchaus brisant: Grüner Konsum – ob durch Energiesparlampen, Hybridautos oder die Energiewende – löst unsere Probleme nicht.

Google translated article, the introduction, clarified translation:

The fight against global warming and environmental pollution can not be won by more efficient technology alone. This is, to put it simply, the result of the report that working group three of the parliamentary commission on economic growth, prosperity, and quality of life presented on Monday also to Die Welt.

Over more than 200 pages, the authors explain why current economic growth and environmental consumption are not just unrelated, but how. The findings are politically explosive throughout: Green consumption - whether by energy-saving bulbs, hybrid cars or the Energiewende energy turning point - does not solve our problems.
(ed- "die Energiewende", Germany's recent decision to abandon nuclear power and go for more wind and solar development along with more stringent energy saving measures, a play on "Die Wende", "turnaround" word, used for the fall of the Berlin Wall 1989, more)

The research report particularly refers to report findings of a "Jevon's paradox" effect whereby energy saving lamps cheaper to use are therefore simply used more, negating supposed savings.
This is nothing new, though of course continually ignored by most politicians.
As Sam Kazman, general counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute has noted, already in 1987 the town of Traer, Iowa handed out 18,000 free fluorescent bulbs 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 (more).


However, this is just one of many reasons why the supposed energy or CO2 savings aren't there, as extensively laid out and referenced in the "How Bans are Wrongly Justified" energy/emission section.


In summary, whatever one's opinion on global warming and any man made CO2 contribution, light bulbs of course don't burn coal or release CO2 anyway
- if there is a problem, deal with the problem.
There are as seen much more relevant savings measures from electricity generation through grid distribution (including new "smart grid" systems) through alternative consumption saving measures.

Society savings are as officially referenced (EU Commission, US Dept of Energy data) a fraction of 1% of EU/US energy use - even before the also rferenced greater life cycle (manufacturing, transport, recycling) energy use of the more complex replacement lighting alternatives.

Power plant off-peak night time electricity production, when greatest incandescent lighting use occurs, is about using below capacity power plant use and even the burning of surplus coal (coal plants being slow expensive and difficult to turn up and down from higher daytime demand levels) - making bulb use irrelevant anyway.
Meanwhile, peaktime electricity use from additional quicker firing gas or hydro turbines involve lower CO2 emissions than coal anyway... and coal CO2 emissions can in themselves be lowered in various ways.
Again, the CO2 reductions they themselves plan in electricity production, are completely ignored by ban-happy politicians extrapolating old figures forwards to give suitably large savings figures for eager uncritical journalists to swallow.

There are even specific reasons why CO2 may rise rather than fall from banning incandescents, as the several referenced research institutes point out, when incandescent heat derived from "clean" electricity sources is replaced by fossil fuel burning room heating sources.

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

 

At least the Polar Bears are Safe Now!

With thanks to Peter of gluehbirne.ist.org ...and Der Tagesspiegel:

"My last Hope...1st September 2012, the end of the incandescents!

After all...as good children know from school
"Teacher says we have to change our light bulbs, or all the polar bears will die!"




Of course, as seen from the "How bans are wrongly justified" section, point 6:
Not only are the energy savings negligible from the start, a fraction of 1% of energy use or c.1% grid electricity, without all the other provisos listed:
But it applies in particular to the main CO2 "culprit", coal, even when unmodified coal is actually used in the first place. This is because of the off-peak post 7pm time of most incandescent lighting use, and the coal that may be burned anyway at such times for operational reasons, from the difficulty of turning down the plants from higher daytime use - an issue which incidentally also applies to newer day - night cycling coal plants (which tend to have lower CO2 emissions anyway).
This is also shown by studies like the extensive APTECH analysis on day-night coal plant cycle issues, as referenced.
 

Now, try telling that to your local politician or journalist...
much easier for them to wave funny bulbs around or print cute pictures of polar bears!

 

birnendenkmal.de

Legal EU Incandescent Bulbs use more Energy than Illegal Incandescents!

image thanks moritz gieselmann

From previous posts regarding rough service availability to ordinary consumers, it was seen that this would be hard to stop anyway for the reasons given:

So effectively the EU are contributing to what they say they are against, since legal EU bulbs use more energy than their banned equivalents!

Regular readers will note that this is similar to the American situation.
The rough service bulbs last longer but are dimmer (the trade off).
Bell as mentioned in the last post seemingly don't give lumen (brightness) rating for their products, but as previously seen from the US discussion it is typically 100W rough service being equivalent to 60-75W regular bulbs in brightness.

So for a bulb of certain brightness, which is after all what you want, legal EU bulbs waste more energy than banned EU bulbs!
They also thereby cost a lot more in use of course, despite longer lifespans.

The predictable EU retort "Let them use energy saving bulbs!" (aka "Let them eat cake!") obviously does not apply for the light quality, appearance etc reasons one might choose such incandescents, also given that Halogen replacement types will also be "phased out" in the EU by 2016.
 

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.

 

Updated: "People don't buy expensive bulbs!" "Too stupid to understand energy savings!"

 
Added note, August 8: Also updated/edited, "Philips, Osram, the UN and the World Bank: How we will en.lighten the World in 2012"


Updated, point 3 on The Deception behind the Arguments used to ban Light Bulbs and other Products page, taking into account also the findings from the Virginia University research.

Background:

An important point in justifying regulations is that stupid consumers don't make the "right" decisions by ourselves.

No - the legislators do not put it like that, of course.
They keep saying
"Hey, we are just setting energy usage standards, so manufacturers have to get their act together and make better bulbs for you consumers, letting you save more money!"
Apart from the fact that "better" bulbs are not just necessarily energy saving bulbs, and that "better" bulbs in any respect (including energy saving) arises from increased rather than decreased market place competition, and that alternatives better in respect of say light quality and brightness may not be able to meet energy usage standards, the argument runs hollow also for the simple fact that standards have to be set so that existing products meet them.
Otherwise consumers might literally be "left in the dark" if appropriate inventions or "improvements" were not possible.
But if people were already buying such existing "great" energy saving products in "sufficient" numbers, no ban would of course be "necessary".

By force of their own logic,
legislators are therefore saying that consumers are too stupid to make the right decisions by themselves.
The supposedly more intelligent legislators, and their hangaround bureaucrat cronies looking for cushy jobs, therefore have to make the decisions for us.

That is not all, as the "stupid consumer" logic then of itself falls flat.
Hence point 3 on the mentioned page:


3. "People won't buy CFLs or LEDs because they are too expensive!
People are too stupid to understand energy savings!"

Consumers don't repeatedly buy cheap products that don't meet their expectations.
Nor do they avoid buying expensive products that can give them future savings.

"Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run"?
From woollen suits to batteries and washing up liquids, durable expensive products are marketed and sold against cheap alternatives. Think of Energizer (Duracell) bunny rabbit commercials!

It is the presence - not the absence - of cheap alternatives that stimulates manufacturers to make better energy saving products, products that people actually want to buy.


Ironically this notion of uninformed consumers making the wrong decisions has been at the basis of improved information labelling of light bulbs and other products, as in both the USA and the EU, along with all the ongoing "switch your bulb" type energy saving campaigns.
Such increasingly informed consumers should by themselves make "better" decisions in line with governmental desire, buy more energy saving products, and reduce the "need" for a ban.
Who are the stupid ones here?
The consumers or the legislators?
July 2012 Virginia University research: Rational consumers - Small environmental savings.


Moreover,
for those who nevertheless insist on a "market failure" to achieve "desired" results from stupid consumers preferring cheap bulbs, then, as described, taxation of incandescents which in turn can cover price lowering subsidies on the CFLs or LEDs obviously "evens out the market" (albeit unjustified of itself).
 

Energy Efficiency Regulations Lambasted: Consumers are not Irrational, and Environmental Benefits are "Negligible"

 

Returning to American criticism, after the "world tour" of the last couple of posts.
I received this Working Paper, the authors may therefore make adjustments.

Overriding Consumer Preferences with Energy Regulations by Ted Gayer and W. Kip Viscusi, Mercatus Center, George Mason University, Arlington, Virginia, August 2012

The study is here (pdf document). An alternative link.
A summary (also a pdf document, and similar to the website page embedded below).


The study authors

Ted Gayer
tgayer@brookings.edu
Ted Gayer (more) is the co-director of the Economic Studies program and the Joseph A. Pechman Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.
He conducts research on a variety of economic issues, focusing particularly on public finance, environmental and energy economics, housing, and regulatory policy. He received his Ph.D. from Duke University.

W. Kip Viscusi
kip.viscusi@vanderbilt.edu
W. Kip Viscusi (more) is Vanderbilt’s first University Distinguished Professor, with primary appointments in the Department of Economics and the Owen Graduate School of Management as well as in the Law School.
He is the award-winning author of more than 20 books and 300 articles, most of which deal with different aspects of health and safety risks.
He received his Ph.D. from Harvard University.

Abstract

This paper examines the economic justification for recent U.S. energy regulations proposed or enacted by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The case studies include mileage requirements for motor vehicles and energy-efficiency standards for clothes dryers, room air conditioners, and light bulbs.

The main findings are that the standards have a negligible effect on greenhouse gases and the preponderance of the estimated benefits stems from private benefits to consumers, based on the regulators' presumption of consumer irrationality

Mercatus.org currently have a website summarizing the study: embedded below.




Society benefits are therefore seen as negligible, in what after all should be done for Society's good:
Consumers may make some enforced personal savings, from a ban on what they otherwise would have bought.

However, as the authors also point out, the assumed consumer irrationality is a mistake:
Consumers may have good reason to buy cheaper products for shorter or temporary usage, and the energy using products may have compensating features that consumers like - obvious enough, or they would not prefer them.
So what is called "benefits from correcting consumer irrationality" comes from additional purchases not otherwise made.
In simple English, having to buy what they otherwise would not buy.
[For more on the common regulator supposition of "market failure" and that people "only buy energy using products because they are cheap" and that "regulation is the only answer to this", see commenting below]

The authors also note the irony that new extensive information labelling requirements should provide the information that the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) and other responsible instances say that consumers lack when they need to make informed purchasing decisions.

Amongst case histories is a particular section on light bulbs.
The authors say
"DOE presents relatively little documentation on how it calculated the costs and benefits of the standard."
"No consideration was made for consumer preferences for different types of light bulbs or for such things as the rebound effect. Thus, the quality of light, whether the bulb is dimmable, and other aspects of light bulbs are irrelevant to the DOE assessment"


Edited extracts from the actual study [my added emphases again]:

Introduction

The efficiency rationale for any government regulation rests on the existence of some type of market failure.
The ways markets may fail are quite diverse, ranging from characteristics of the market structure to various kinds of externalities; that is, adverse effects on parties other than the buyer and seller of a product.

In the absence of some type of market failure there is no legitimate basis for regulation from the standpoint of enhancing economic efficiency.
The regulations are based on an assumption that government choices better reflect the preferences of consumers and firms than the choices consumers and firms would make themselves. They assume consumers and, in some cases, firms are incapable of making rational decisions and that regulatory policy should be governed by the myopic objective of energy efficiency to the exclusion of other product attributes.

Energy efficiency standards provide a valuable case study of how agencies can be blinded by parochial interests to assume not only that their mandate trumps all other concerns but also that economic actors outside of the agency are completely incapable of making sound decisions. The assumption that the world outside the agency is irrational is a direct consequence of the agencies’ view that energy efficiency is always the paramount product attribute and that choices made on any other basis must be fundamentally flawed.

They then examine the rationale for regulations,
comparing consumer need and society outcome...

The Energy-Efficiency Gap

The clearest regulatory example questioning consumer rationality is with respect to energy-efficient consumer goods, for which consumers frequently face a tradeoff of a higher upfront capital cost versus lower future operating costs over the life of the product.
A rational consumer will [supposedly] consider things such as the expected future cost of energy, the expected lifetime of the product, the frequency of use of the product, and the discount rate to convert future savings to present value compared to the up-front capital cost.

A long-standing empirical finding, known as the energy-efficiency gap, shows that consumer choices for energy-efficiency purchases imply a discount rate much higher than market discount rates, suggesting that consumers underweight the future cost savings stemming from an energy-efficient product compared to the weight they put on the future in other market settings...

[But] empirical evidence suggests that consumers’ valuation of the long-term differences in fuel efficiency for different models of cars may be quite reasonable.
In an econometric study of prices of used cars, Dreyfus and Viscusi estimated the rate of interest implicit in a consumer’s valuation of the discounted value of vehicle operating costs... [were] consistent with market rates.”
Unlike some engineering studies that purport to show that consumers neglect energy efficiency, this study considered a wide range of car attributes other than energy efficiency that are valued by consumers...
[Also] if you are planning to move or have a current liquidity problem, buying the more energy efficient but more expensive appliance may not make sense from an economic standpoint.....

[Similarly] Anderson and Newell find that manufacturing plants reject about half of the energy-efficiency projects recommended by engineering analyses because of unaccounted physical costs, risks, opportunity costs, lack of staff for analysis or implementation, risk of inconvenience to personnel, or suspected risk of problems with equipment.

By ignoring these relevant characteristics of the product, and the specifics of the customer’s economic circumstances, the engineering studies can arrive at incorrect findings of personal savings from the products that have higher up-front costs but yield lower operating costs.
Since the engineering studies focus only on capital costs and operating costs, they do not allow for any heterogeneity of preferences and use of products across consumers.
Another possible explanation for the findings of apparently high consumer discount rates in engineering studies is that consumers do not expect to receive as high a return in energy savings as the analyst assumes.
The regulatory agencies [therefore] frequently rely on engineering studies that presume consumers can accrue benefits by regulatory standards that restrict consumption choices.

Taken as a whole, the engineering and empirical literature on the energy-efficiency gap does not provide strong, credible evidence of persistent consumer irrationality.

Providing accurate information to consumers would be preferable to regulatory mandates.
Indeed, Executive Order 12866 (signed by President Clinton and re-affirmed by President Obama in his Executive Order 1356316) requires each agency to “identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, . . . such as . . . providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.”
Informational efforts can and do provide energy-cost information over the lifetime of the appliance.

They then go on to "analyze documentation used to support energy efficiency regulations promulgated by DOE, EPA, and DOT" for different products.

Case Studies

CAFE Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks
One does not have to be a reader of automobile reviews in Edmunds.com, Car and Driver, or Road and Track to realize that fuel efficiency is but one of many factors people use to assess the quality of an automobile.
Acceleration, handling, braking ability, legroom, riding comfort, safety, reliability, styling, and trunk storage are among the many other dimensions of concern to automobile purchasers.
Despite the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) admission that it is uncertain whether the lack of market demand for higher fuel economy is due to consumer irrationality or consumer preferences, it proceeds to promulgate a regulation that assumes the former.

[NHTSA and EPA] justifications largely amount to problems of inadequate information, such as the reasoning that fuel-economy benefits are not salient enough to consumers, that consumers have difficulty calculating expected fuel savings, or that consumers might associate higher fuel
economy with inexpensive, less well-designed vehicles.
[This] raises the question of why a rigid mandate is warranted rather than an informational regulation that would provide consumers with the guidance to make sounder choices.
Indeed, in 2011 EPA did just that by issuing its Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label Final Rule. The mandated label for all new cars is quite extensive, including an overall mpg rating, a city mpg rating, a highway mpg rating, gallons/100 miles, driving range on a tank of gas, fuel costs in five years versus the average new vehicle, annual fuel costs, fuel economy and greenhouse-gas rating, and smog rating.

What is striking about the EPA analysis of the CAFE standard is [therefore] that the EPA regulatory impact analysis does not even mention the existence of the agency’s own new label rule.
This oversight goes to the heart of the CAFE standard analysis, as most of the benefits needed to justify the regulation relate to consumer choice failures targeted by the new labeling..

The agencies that regulate these standards—the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and EPA—estimate greenhouse-gas benefits make up less than 10 percent of the total claimed benefits. But when benefits are restricted to only the United States, they drop to just over 1 percent of total claimed benefits.


Clothes Dryers, Air Conditioners, Clothes Washers
DOE estimates the global greenhouse-gas emissions benefits of clothes dryer standards as between $93 million and $1.49 billion which is below the estimated private benefits range of $1.08 billion to $3.01 billion.
DOE estimates the global greenhouse-gas emissions benefits of room air conditioner standards as between $77 million to $1.16 billion as compared with the estimated private benefits range of $570 million to $1.47 billion.

An earlier proposed regulation of clothes washers was purported to have great energy savings for consumers, but a Rasmussen Research poll found tremendous consumer opposition to the standard.By a margin of 6 to 1 the public opposed regulations that would effectively eliminate top-loading washing machines.
Much of the opposition arose because most consumers wash fewer loads per week than the DOE analysis assumed; for this group the present value of the cost savings is far less than the estimated savings.
Engineering studies divorced from consumer usage and preferences can produce policies that produce far fewer benefits than predicted.


Other Appliances
Acting under authority from EPCA, DOE has promulgated energy-efficiency regulations for other appliances as well.
For example, DOE issued standards for residential refrigerators in 2011, and for industrial products, such as high-intensity light fixtures (known as metal halide lamp fixtures) and walk-in coolers and freezers in 2012.
As in the case of the fuel-economy standards, for each of these appliance standards, the preponderance of the estimated benefits consists of [supposed] private benefits to the purchasers of the products:
There must be some form of individual irrationality or behavioral shortcoming of individual choices to give rise to these benefits. DOE provides little, if any, analysis and documentation of this assumed irrationality in its rules.

Not forgetting light bulbs...

General Service Incandescent Lamps

DOE presents relatively little documentation on how it calculated the costs and benefits of the standard.
The DOE analysis calculated cumulative national energy savings as the sum of annual national energy savings, which in turn was estimated as the difference in annual national energy consumption between the base case and the case with the new General Service Incandescent Lamps (GSIL) standards.
DOE estimates 14.14 quads in cumulative national energy savings.
The net present value to consumers is computed as the present value of operating-cost savings minus the present value of increased total installed costs.

DOE computed the operating-cost savings for a given year by multiplying the surviving stock of GSILs of a given vintage in that year by the per-unit operating-cost savings for that vintage (obtained by multiplying the vintage’s expected energy savings by forecasted energy prices), then summing over vintages.
DOE computed increased total installed costs for a given year by researching product catalogs, online distributors, and manufacturing interviews to estimate “the increase in unit prices for products that comply with EISA 2007.”
It then multiplied the surviving stock of GSILs of a given vintage in that year by this annual per-unit total-installed cost increase, then summed over vintages.

No consideration was made for consumer preferences for different types of light bulbs or for such things as the rebound effect.
Thus, the quality of light, whether the bulb is dimmable, and other aspects of light bulbs are irrelevant to the DOE assessment.

DOE’s net present value estimate is for $27.5 billion (7 percent discount rate) or $64.2 billion (3 percent discount rate) in cumulative savings to consumers from 2008 through 2038 stemming from the efficiency standards for light bulbs.
These estimates of private benefits far outweigh DOE’s estimate of between zero and $16.34 billion in benefits from reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Once again, [supposed] private benefits to consumers drive the economic justification for the analysis.

Conclusion

The economic puzzle raised by all these energy regulations is why consumers are this remiss.
How can it be that consumers are leaving billions of potential economic gains on the table by not buying the most energy-efficient cars, clothes dryers, air conditioners, and light bulbs?
Moreover, how can it also be the case that firms seeking to earn profits are likewise ignoring highly attractive opportunities to save money?
If the savings are this great, why is it that a very basic labeling approach cannot remedy this seemingly stunning example of completely irrational behavior?

It should be quite simple to rectify decisions that are this "flawed".
It should be a red flag that something is amiss with an analysis that assumes such perplexing consumer and firm behavior that runs counter to the most rudimentary economic theory and our general sense that we do not live in a world in which people never make sound choices.

It might be that there is something that is incorrect or perhaps even irrational in the assumptions being made in the regulatory impact analyses.
Indeed, upon closer inspection it is apparent that there is no empirical evidence provided for the types of consumer failures alleged.
Even if some consumers do sometimes fall short on certain dimensions of choice, the magnitude and prevalence of such a shortfall is important and is never addressed in the regulatory assessments. Nor is there adequate consideration of the actual and potential role of informational remedies that have already been adopted.

Perhaps the main failure of rationality is that of the regulators themselves.  [!]
Agency officials who have been given a specific substantive mission have a tendency to focus on these concerns to the exclusion of all others.
Thus, fuel efficiency and energy efficiency matter, but nothing else does.
If other attributes matter, it is assumed they either are irrelevant or will be included at no additional cost in the post-regulation products. In effect, government officials act as if they are guided by a single mission myopia that leads to the exclusion of all concerns other than their agency’s mandate.
Institutional biases of this type are common and are fundamental characteristics of organizational behavior. Indeed, the existence of parochial visions by agencies is a major reason the Executive Office of the President has institutionalized a formal regulatory oversight process beginning with the Ford administration and including a BCA [Benefit Cost Analysis] test since the Reagan administration.
One question raised by these analyses is whether the legislation mandating these standards permits OMB [Office of Management and Budget] to provide credible evidence of the market failures pivotal to justifying the regulations.

Adopting a more accurate economic analysis does not imply that government agencies do not have any policy tools that can be used to foster greater energy efficiency.
Informational policies and more limited forms of policy intervention may be warranted on a benefit-cost basis.
Recent regulatory analyses demonstrate that the current energy-efficiency initiatives do very little to address climate change. Rather than squander societal resources on more ineffective policy efforts, a more productive approach would be to search for policy options that offer greater potential for making a serious dent in greenhouse-gas emissions.

Even the modest environmental benefits are overstated because they are based on projected benefits to the world — not just to citizens of the United States.

Comment

A further note on the supposition that "there is a market failure that requires regulations".
Market failure is the underlying reason for regulations, in other words that consumers are not voluntarily buying the "right" products, and so the markets have "failed".

As the study authors point out,
the concept of market failure is questionable, in that consumers may have rational reasons for buying what they do:
- either in that the overall cost may be too high for short term or temporary use,
- or that the product may have other desirable features attracting a purchase
These issues are also extensively covered here, regarding the exemplified effect of
regulatory standards on product characteristics, product price and usage savings, http://ceolas.net/#cc21x.

A common follow-up by "market failure" advocates is that people only buy the products because they are "cheap", not because of any useful features:
Therefore, people should be "happy" in being pushed or forced to make purchases "expensive to buy but cheap in the long run".
However, people do buy many other products which are virtually identical except that the expensive kind "is cheaper in the long run", as illustrated with the battery and washing up liquid examples in the Deception of Light Bulb Ban Arguments rundown on this site.

Also more generally do people buy expensive product versions, or they would not be on the market.
In fact, that is precisely the situation with energy saving alternatives, as with the CFL and LED and Halogen alternatives relevant in the context of this blog, and as both American (DoE) and EU (EcoDesign) research has shown:
Most have some of these in their households already - but they obviously don't want all their lighting to be of such kind.
How hard can it be to understand this?


Again, even if it is accepted that "something must be done" to correct the supposed market failure, then, as the authors suggest, better information is the first line of action, informational labelling that has just been introduced in new extensive forms in both the USA and EU (as with light bulbs), and that therefore could be given time to act, again echoing what the authors say.

Ignoring that, regulation is still not the answer to save electricity:
As covered in point 13 of the mentioned Deception rundown.
In other words, stimulation of market competition, or taxation-subsidy policies.

Stimulated market competition involves helping new inventions to market, but without continuing subsidies.
With electricity, it also involves the increased competition of service providers in the grids, thereby using their energy resources efficiently under market pressure - without regulation.

Market Competition and Taxation-Subsidy policies as alternative to Regulations, using Light Bulb example: http://ceolas.net/#li23x.

Taxation is not the best option, but is interestingly and oddly shunned also by liberal pro-regulator tax-and-spend politicians: As said it can pay for price reductions on energy saving alternatives, so people are "Not Just Hit By Taxes".


Bankrupt California has seemingly got round to asking the electorate
"How you want to be taxed, as increased taxation is now a necessity".

Well now!
There is hardly a less painful way to achieve government income than to base energy standards on taxation rather than regulation, be it building construction, cars, washing machines, TV sets, light bulbs etc, given the plethora of current bans accompanied by subsidies to utilities and manufacturers.
It allows such subsidies to be covered, or of course other Government spending, while ensuring greater consumer choice.
Environmental targets are still kept as desired, a high tax simulates a ban, while intermediate levels give high government income for compensatory "Green" measures.

No - taxation is not the best option.
But it is yet another way that the supposition "market failure requires regulation" is wrong:
if there actually is a "market failure" when people are allowed to buy what they want!


Perhaps one day the officials pursuing bans or "energy usage based phase outs" of popular useful products will start to think about what they are doing.
The question is, when.
 

A Dutch View: "The Unholy Alliance between Philips and the Greens"

Updated August 1

Having covered South African and Hong Kong criticism of the ban and of the replacement bulbs, it is worth remembering that there have been similar good articles originating in the EU.
Naturally, most English language articles have a UK source, but some others have appeared that don't need translation tools (or manual work!).
This article by Dutch researchers has been mentioned in a previous post, but deserves its own.
Written in 2010, it remains valid today.

From University of Colorado Professor Roger Pielke Sr Climate Science Site:
Both Professor Roger Pielke Sr and Professor Roger Pielke Jr (blog) are something as unusual as institutional, renowned climate scientists that are not afraid to make their own judgements on climate change.
Note how criticism is otherwise something such scientists tend to do once they leave office!
(and - whatever the rights and wrongs - the notion that "most scientists agree with current climate change policies" should be taken with that knowledge, that few would go against established governmental and institutional opinion anyway, for fear of not receiving continued funding etc)

The below article post has this source.


About the authors

Henk Tennekes is an aeronautical engineer. From 1965 to 1977 he was a professor of Aerospace Engineering at Penn State. He is co-author of A First Course in Turbulence (MIT Press, 1972 – still in print) and author of The Simple Science of Flight, recently (2009) released revised and expanded.


Joost van Kasteren [website] is a senior writer on technology and science in Holland, having also been a science journal editor.
He covers energy, housing, water management, agriculture, food technology, innovation, science policy, and related issues.

Typically straight-talking Dutchmen, they don't spare the rhetoric as they conclude the article...

In 2006, Dutch legislators caved in under the combined lobbying pressure by Philips and Greenpeace. A parliamentary majority in The Hague embraced the idea of banning incandescent bulbs and ordered the Dutch Environment Minister, Jacqueline Cramer, to lobby for an extension of the ban to all states in the European Union.

That task proved simple enough.
Top politicians in Europe, Germany’s Angela Merkel up front, deeply impressed by Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, were only too eager to project an image of strength and will power concerning imagined threats to the planet. ”Save the Earth, ban the bulb” was an effective campaign strategy.

To make a long story short, it took less than one year to issue a binding European Union Edict ordering the phasing out of incandescent bulbs, starting with a ban on bulbs of 100 watts and more effective March 1, 2009, and leading to a complete ban of all incandescent lighting on September 1, 2012.

The spin doctors at Philips headquarters have got it made.
And if this scam backfires on them in consumer protests all over Europe, they can cover their backsides by claiming that politicians and the green movement are responsible, not they.
Backfire it will. There exist no decent alternatives to incandescent light. None.

The history of the EU ban is extensively covered with documentation and communication copies on the Ceolas site, here: http://ceolas.net/#euban.





 

And a Critical View from Hong Kong...

 
Having just considered a South African criticism of what is going on, consider another good article, this time from Hong Kong, again highlighting the problems of fluorescent or LED bulb replacements, as well as the questionable need and legitimacy of the product regulation itself.

It comes from Dr Robert Hanson:

Dr Hanson holds a PhD in the Built Environment from The Bartlett University College London. He worked in the energy industry in England where he was involved in calculating energy prices and setting tariff s under both competitive and nationalized conditions.

From the Capitalism.HK magazine.
Embedded article below: source.





 

Politics, Science, and the Effect of Bans

 
Updated July 10, July 11

image  DesignLessBetter

From Savethebulb.org
Some sections of the "Ecodesign Regulation Failure?" post (some added highlighting, as also with other quotes below).

We are now 3 years into the European ban on incandescent lamps. Has it achieved the promised goals of energy savings? By this time we would have expected there to be some evidence that energy savings would be apparent. Working with Catherine Hessett, Coordinator of the Spectrum Alliance and a professional statistician we took a look at the published electricity supply figures for the UK between 2009 , before the ban and December 2011 looking for some significant and identifiable energy savings. Well there was a reduction in energy use however this was more commensurate with the reduction in economic activity brought about by the economic recession so we concluded, if there was a reduction in domestic energy use then it was so slight as to have been negligible and certainly not as significant as the legislation promised.

Thanks to the assistance of David Martin, MEP we placed a written question to the European Parliament on this issue...

1. What monitoring has taken place to measure the effectiveness of this regulation in achieving its objectives?
2. What proof is there that the expected reduction in energy use attributable to this regulation is now being achieved?


We have now received the answer:

E-004763/2012
Answer given by M. Oettinger
on behalf of the Commission
(22.6.2012)

"It is still premature to draw conclusions as regards the effectiveness of the Regulation on household lamps 244/20091 as major categories of incandescent bulbs are only phased out in September 2011 (60W) and in September 2012 (40W and below), with retailers allowed to sell their remaining stocks even beyond those dates.
The Regulation will – like other regulations in the frame of the ecodesign process – be subject to a review in the light of technical progress, at the latest five years after its entry into force (2014). During this review, the Commission will collect data in a systematic way that will allow to judge the effectiveness of the regulation."


Apart from the fact this does not answer either of our direct questions this seems to show that there has either been no work so far on this topic or the results are similar to those that we found in the UK, i.e. there is no discernible energy saving being generated by the ban. As the legislation has to be reviewed next year if the work is not being done now the results will not be available next year to consider in the required review.

One interesting and useful piece of research that has recently been published is the Household Energy Use Study commissioned by DEFRA [Note, DEFRA is the UK Governmental Environment Department,
the pdf seems slow to download, Kevan has kindly made this easier loading alternative available]. This studied energy use in 251 owner occupier households between April 2010 and April 2011. It makes fascinating reading and when the full data is made available as is promised will allow some further interesting analysis. Meantime there are some interesting points that can be gleaned from the report.

As has been shown in previous studies the amount of lighting energy used in households is far more dependent on behaviour than the type of lighting equipment used. Ultimately the length of time a light is left switched on has significantly more influence on total energy used than the wattage of the lamp. Another interesting point is that the proportion of electricity used in households for lighting is now being overtaken by that used for Audio Visual and Computers in the home. Despite this no one so far is proposing that plasma large screen tellys are banned in favour of LED types that use a fraction of the electricity!

UK Dept of Environment (DEFRA) Household Energy Usage Survey   [ref Save The Bulb]




Page 423, Conclusion

Conclusions and Recommendations

This project is one of the biggest measurement campaigns ever made in Europe to assess the energy saving potential of domestic appliances. The high number of households monitored and analysed gives an accurate overview of the electrical consumption and, more importantly, allows the calculation of potential savings:
• in England, the total potential annual electricity saving per household ranges from 491 kWh to 677 kWh depending on the type of household;
• this total potential electricity saving is a minimum value because lighting savings are underestimated;
• the priority actions that should be carried out for demand side management (DSM) concern cold appliances, lighting, audiovisual sites and computer sites:
− replacing the inefficient cold appliances with the most efficient models could save up to 358 kWh/year per household;
− choosing a laptop instead of a desktop and reducing standby consumption could save up to 128 kWh/year for the computer site;
− using only audiovisual appliances with a standby power of less than 0.5 W could reduce this consumption of this type of appliance by 111 kWh/year.
Therefore it is important to:
• Enforce the regulation that bans putting appliances on the market with a standby power above 1 W or even 0.5 W.
• Implement standby power management procedures for computer appliances using power managers such as ENERGY STAR®.
• Implement a national programme to address standby power in appliances that are already installed. The objective is to remove this standby power consumption by simply cutting the electrical supply of the appliances by using manual switches or standby power managers, which are generally very cheap devices.
• Intensify and accelerate the setting of stricter consumption norms, and energy label class A+ or A++ appliances should, in a very short period, become the standard, particularly for cold appliances and clothes dryers.

Comment

Good Savethebulb point about follow-up after the ban.

To begin with, regardless of savings - why continue a ban in a couple of years time, when the "switchover objective" has been achieved:
The ban proponents themselves keep saying "people only buy cheap bulbs out of habit, they will be happy to see the savings, they will like the new bulbs once they get used to them", etc etc.
Good.
Then new purchases of old style incandescents are supposedly few, and allowable.
"Energy guzzling" vacuum tubes were not banned just because transistors came along, and still have appreciated uses.

While a 2014 EU review is promised (much the same as the USA, for that matter) the desire for an unbiased review of actual savings seems in doubt, from the above blog post.
Perhaps not surprising.
In general policy making, politicans, their hangaround cronies and their expensive hired-in consultants rarely if ever seem to follow up on what their grand promises might achieve... what politician wants to be proved wrong?
If challenged, they mumble about checking it in future, i.e. when they are out of office, so someone else can carry the can.


It is interesting to compare Politics and Science regarding fact based evidence for action, and indeed the greater scientific emphasis on follow-up evidence of supposed results...

Relevant here is the Cambridge Network and their Scientific Alliance advisory forum mission

“Scientific advances have provided, and will continue to provide, solutions to many environmental problems.
While differences of opinion are welcome and, indeed, play a vital role in the development of both science and society, the Scientific Alliance is concerned about the many ways in which science is misinterpreted and at times misrepresented.
If optimal use is to be made of currently available resources, policies must be based upon sound and reliable information. The Scientific Alliance provides a forum for addressing environmental problems based on sound science.”

The line-up as seen includes a whole range of scientists.
Unfortunately, as recently highlighted by the BBC relating to the Higgs boson discovery,
few scientists get politically involved, hence the unscientific bandying about of big bulb ban savings figures without regard for overall facts...
Even when they are involved - who listens?
Sir Alec Broers runs the Cambridge Network, "Alec Broers (1992 Head of Cambridge University Engineering Department, 1998 Knighted for services to education, 2001 President of The Royal Academy of Engineering, 2004 Becomes Chairman of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, 2008 becomes Chairman of Diamond Light Source Ltd., United Kingdom’s largest new scientific facility for 30 years)".
Note, "Chairman of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee".

The token nature of the light bulb ban in terms of energy savings was pointed out by the Network in their September 3, 2009 newsletter, extracts:

" A study by VITO consultants showed the following breakdown of lamp use in European homes in 2007:
• 54% incandescent (down from 85% in 1995 and still decreasing)
• 18% low-voltage halogen (and increasing)
• 5% mains-voltage halogen (and growing)
• 8% linear fluorescent
• 15% CFL
So, if we assume that all remaining filament bulbs are replaced by CFL at some point in the future,
that these bulbs are used to the same extent as those they replace,
and that the energy reduction per bulb is 80%,
the total reduction in EU energy use would be
0.54 x 0.8 x 0.76% = 0.33%.
This figure is almost certainly an overestimate, particularly as the inefficiency of conventional bulbs generates heat which supplements other forms of heating in winter.

Which begs the question: is it really worth it?
The problem is that legislators are unable to tackle the big issues of energy use effectively, so go for the soft target of a high profile domestic use of energy... this is gesture politics.

LEDs might be substituted for CFLs in some respects, but the principle still holds.
Interestingly, the DEFRA study is largely similar to the VITO findings (with similar mis-labelling, since "Halogens" are of course "Incandescents" too), with some more halogens replacing simple incandescents, as was predicted, and with marginal LED usage, figure 452 page 327.
In the EU, seemingly for political reasons, the original VITO study was discounted in favor of a Bertoldi study which showed a higher usage of regular incandescents, that "just happened" to deliver "big savings from a ban"...

Neither way actually justifies a ban:
A decreased use of incandescents = lowered energy savings from a ban,
while maintained use of incandescents, like temporary allowed halogens = what people want to use....


Again, regarding the Savethebulb blog post stating that lights left on waste more energy than the choice of lights, the DEFRA study page referenced has some confirmation:

A high lighting consumption can be the result of a household having a high installed wattage, for example having a lot of halogen or incandescent bulbs, or as a result of long periods of lighting use...
What can be seen is that the households with the highest lighting consumptions are not the ones with the highest installed lighting wattage
[And yet] households who have [the lower wattage] CFL light bulbs may also be more concerned about saving energy than those households that have fewer or no CFL bulbs, and they may be more careful about how many lights they switch on and the length of time they are used for...[a point of irony in that case, since switching CFLs on and off shortens their lifespan, and they also have a power on surge]

DEFRA actually finds that households with several CFLs are the ones using up most electricity.... seemingly more than pure incandescent or CFL households.
Perhaps not surprising:
The well known rebound effect of using products more if usage is cheaper may be playing a role
(as researched, http://ceolas.net/#cc214x).
Committed environmentalist households that even use CFLs in say bathrooms might be more conscious about overall energy use.



Apart from actual energy use, there is the additional moral aspect of what "waste" actually is:
Unnecessarily leaving lights on = a "waste" of energy
The personal paid for choice of what product to use = not a "waste" of energy

Also, as Kevan says in his blog post, and as the DEFRA and other studies also point out, there is plenty of other household electricity use that is more wasteful, whether heating, cooling, or "stand-by use" of electronic equipment, or the other product usage mentioned (see Table 36, page 422 in DEFRA study).

More succintly, ignored by DEFRA but supported by their time data, environmentally relevant energy use actually caused by lighting is negligible:
Off-peak power plant energy is "wasted" regardless of what light bulb you use, especially coal, the main relevant source that is supposed to be saved...
Again referring to the DEFRA study:
The lighting usage graphs show that most lighting use is after 7pm,
and "the main peak was always between 21:00 and 23:00"... hardly surprising perhaps, but comes back to the issue of night time coal power plants for operational reasons burning off surplus fuel no-one in effect uses, as covered more on a separate blog page and more still on http://ceolas.net/#li172x.
Again, towards the end of the DEFRA study, it shows that main household electricity consumption is around 5pm - and always much more before 7pm than after it.
This confirms the radical disjoint between main lighting consumption times, and overall main consumption times - and therefore how base loading power plants (like coal) burn much the same energy during lighting times, regardless of the lights being on or off.
Also, as peak time is 5-7pm when quicker firing gas and hydro turbines typically supplement base loading power, they again are hardly wasted by the mostly later lighting use, and in any case are of less environmental concern than coal.

So, as overall switchover energy savings are small anyway, and there is no future shortage of low emission and renewable electricity sources, it is all simply about unnecessarily forcing citizens to make choices they would not voluntarily make (or the regulations would not be "necessary" in the first place), "feel good" savings that certainly "feels good" for light bulb manufacturers hawking patented expensive alternatives.

Of course, if "saving electricity" really was such a big deal, then the price of it (or say coal) could be shoved up, or electricity rationed
- still allowing people to make their own choices about how to use it in their own homes.


The retort "It's just about light bulbs" can be turned into "They start by banning light bulbs"
given all the other planned legislation.... which, regarding the above blog post, in the EU includes plans concerning those plasma screens too, though not seen any updates to the initial announcement (2009 Telegraph article).
As always, banned products have their own usage advantages, with plasma screens in contrast, wide angle viewing, and less motion blur compared with similar size LED screens for their price.


"They impose what seems efficient, and forget what is effective"

Rather than politicians taking scientific advice,
scientists are instead themselves adviced to find "suitable replacements",
when the "best" replacement might be "no" replacement.
The natural Fluorescent and LED advantages, as Tube and Sheet respectively,
are largely sacrificed in pursuing their use as Bulbs to replace incandescents.

Getting a Blast out of Incandescents

 
Originally seen on Kevan's Save the Bulb blog,
this, er, "educational" game has since been updated...

Strange things happen in America
...a major Minnesota based energy company with a broad portfolio of generating assets including Coal and Nuclear have launched “Bulb Blasters”, a free iPhone game that uses a variety of compact fluorescent “weapons” to blast incandescent lamp based flying saucers. I couldn’t resist this however can report that it is possibly the worst implementation of a classic Space Invaders video game that you could possibly imagine. Maybe they should have spent their money on some proper research in cleaning up their Coal fired generating capacity or saving it for decommissioning their nuclear plants!

The game can be downloaded for Google Android or Apples iTunes devices from
Bulbblasters.com.

It was developed by Voltage digital applications company for Xcel Energy...
From their iPhone apps page:

We’re excited to announce a new iPhone app developed by VOLTAGE for Xcel Energy is now available in the App Store. The FREE game – Bulb Blasters recalls the good ol’ fashioned awesomeness of 80′s arcade play as you try and blast less efficient incandescent bulbs off the screen with your energy saving CFL Cannon...

The Bulb blasters site modestly expands...

BLAST YOUR WAY TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY


Embark on a futuristic mission to defeat the Incandescent Drones that suck over 75% more energy than an efficient CFL bulb.

Conquer the inefficiency of incandescent light bulbs by blasting them out of the sky with a Compact Fluorescent Light Bulb Cannon. Along the way you’ll learn triumphant facts about how CFLs save you energy, save you money, and can help save the universe from the evils of inefficiency.
Fight your way through futuristic worlds filled with incandescent invaders.
Learn to save without sacrifice every where around your home by connecting to Xcel Energy via Facebook, Twitter, and ResponsibleByNature.com.



What's New in Version 1.1
Take the battle against inefficiency to the next level.
Blast your way through to the mothership, and liberate lighting efficiency once and for all!

The company behind it is therefore Xcel Energy...

they profile themselves as follows...

Xcel Energy is a U.S. investor-owned electricity and natural gas company with regulated operations in eight Midwestern and Western states. Based in Minneapolis, Minn., we provide a comprehensive portfolio of energy-related products and services through our four wholly owned utility subsidiaries.

More specifically related to the game is their subsite
ResponsibleByNature.com, a site dedicated to energy saving tips.
These include tips specific to lighting, in turn including a series of videos.
The videos tell you how all light bulbs have advantages, including incandescents, for different uses and locations! (oh alright... they tell you you should change all your bulbs...).



Comment

Whatever about the game itself,
note the underlying message from a plethora of Government sites, from Environment organizations and from Energy companies to You, the Citizen:

"Hey, save lots of money by cutting down on energy use!"

So what's so wrong with that?
Nothing:
Except it handily replaces how consumers could really save money on their electricity bills - by subjecting electricity companies to supply competition in the grids.
Even better, from future smart grid and metering changes to allow easier switching between suppliers also in real time (a much more cost relevant use for such meters, rather than today's flustered politicians praising them because "they can tell you if you left a light bulbs on").

Today's policians and their hangaround environmental cronies subscribe to massive upfront
cost exercises in for example grid changes needed to accomodate intermittent wind and solar supplies, and still more to back up such energy with conventional base loading alternatives:
Utilities happily benefit from the relevant energy and grid subsidies, paid for by consumers as taxpayers.
[Yes, environmental considerations may necessitate generation and grid changes, but that could be handled very differently, with greater effectiveness and less consumer impact as covered on Ceolas.net, first section]

Utilities profit still more from the current policy:
Just as the neutral observer can - and should- question why major light bulb manufacturers welcome being told what they can or can't make i.e. so expensive patented bulbs can be offloaded to choice-deprived consumers,
so utilities can happily offload expensive electricity to choice-deprived consumers.
Hence all the necessitated "save energy and save on your bill" promotional campaigns.


But wait, it gets better...
Often the utilities have a stake in or control the supplying grids,
and if captive customers reduce energy use the utilities can simply raise the price and squeeze more money out of the customers... increasing profits without having to expand the grid to seek new customers.
Regulators? That is precisely what US/EU state regulators are allowing, as referenced below.

Better still,
the utilities are getting (still more) state subsidies in advance for the calculated expected sales loss from an energy consumption reduction, an energy usage reduction which, as seen from the Deception summary on this site and more expansively explained on Ceolas.net, is hardly likely: But hey, that's money already in energy company executive pockets!
And yes, that includes subsidy agreement with Governments to push "energy saving bulbs" and other knick-knacks on customers who would otherwise not buy them.

As extensively referenced http://ceolas,.net/#li1ax onwards, US California, Ohio, Washington, Canada BC, and EU Britain examples.


The bottom line is that you, the reader, are being screwed:
Screwed by your politician, screwed by your friendly environmental organization, screwed by your light bulb manufacturer and screwed by your electricity supplier, all singing off the same hymn sheet in happy unison.

So with any screwable incandescent in turn disappearing from view, why not play at finishing the job with that game there... ;-)