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 Commission Light Bulb Ban Review 3: LightingEurope Industry Statement

Continuing the series on the EU Light Bulb Ban Review.

Recap
The first post covered the details of the review of the 2009 light bulb regulations that has been started by the EU (European) Commission, and the Commission's proposed 2 year delay on the stage 6 phase out of halogen replacements.

The second post covered the lighting industry position ahead of the EU proposal, mainly that of the major LightingEurope stakeholder (Philips, Osram etc), where they advocated a 3 year delay.
As seen, the representatives were unhappy about cheap lower quality LED imports, hoping for stricter rules in the meantime, rather than being particularly keen to maintain a halogen (let alone standard incandescent) choice for consumers.
My comments criticized this accordingly.

Of course, a few representatives do not necessarily speak for the whole association.
In any case, as per the subsequent released official position of LightingEurope on the issue, they advocate abolition of the stage 6 phase out, and are certainly supportive of halogen lighting alternatives.

An outsider would consider this completely normal:
After all, what manufacturer normally welcomes a ban on what they can or can't make?
Yet, as the history of regulation shows, the major manufacturers have hitherto done just that, on the basis of forced switchovers to more profitable alternatives. A cynical view is that allowing halogens is a magnanimous meaningless gesture to the manufacturer profit bottom line (halogen replacements being far more expensive than regular incandescent bulbs for marginal usage savings, and they were unpopular as a mains voltage choice while regular incandescents still existed). But at least it maintains more choice for consumers.


Should be seen below as a scrollable PDF document:
LightingEurope position on the review of the Stage 6 Requirements of Commission Regulation (EC) No 244/2009

Commenting follows below.






Comment

Conclusions

LightingEurope welcomes Commission’s proposal to postpone the entry into force of the stage 6 requirements. Nevertheless, the LightingEurope recommends the abolishment of Stage 6 requirements, allowing LED technology
to mature further and to grow to a level of market penetration that made it a viably alternative for all EU citizens after having reached an optimal point in terms of monetary and energy savings, without compromising jobs.

Clearly welcome.
Interestingly, as seen LightingEurope is also critical of the Commission suggestion to ban special R7 and G9 halogen types, and to enforce LED compatibility on new fixtures - as covered in the updated first post in this series.



The main argumentation, extracts, inserted comments in italics:

Impact on European Consumers
Each technology produces light with a different distribution pattern.
Halogen lamps are omni-directional point sources,
CFL lamps are omni-directional diffuse sources,
LED chips are directional point sources.
[All lighting forms have their own advantages..indeed]

Luminaires designed for halogen lamps are generally designed for omni-directional point sources.
Other lamp types may or may not function properly in a luminaire in a specific application.
[Note the implied criticism of the EU proposal to enforce LED compatible fixtures]

It is up to the user to determine whether or not a CFL or LED replacement lamp is acceptable.
[An extraordinary statement, for anyone who has read their past communications]

In many applications they are acceptable, but in many other applications they are not.
It needs to be pointed out in this context that learnings from the phase out of incandescent lamps that started in 2009 should be taken into account when determining stage 6 requirements. Upholding these requirements or even postponing them to only 2018 would lead to a factual and unintended phase-out of well established and demanded products on the European lighting market. [Implied objection to EU regulatory rule - again extraordinary - hopefully the authors of this don't get sent to Siberia or whatever the equivalent EU punishment is... and it continues:]
It is to be expected that the consumer’s outrage might be comparable to the one in 2009.
In some applications, a halogen lamp is required for the luminaire to function properly in terms of light emission, quantity of light, light distribution, dimmability, heat management and quality of emission.
If no halogen lamp is available anymore, the only other option is to completely replace the luminaire which would have a severe negative economic impact on the consumer.

Reasonable estimations from industry side indicate that more than 200 million luminaires [fittings etc] in European households would factually become unusable under implementation of stage 6 requirements.
Given this, also a transition period until 2018 would give only five years to European consumers to replace their luminaires.
In the end (costs minus savings) until 2025 consumer would have costs for replacing luminaires of 1.9bn€!
Together with the additional costs €3.1 to €4.6bn caused by a ban as calculated in Table 19 of the review study (p. 40) the overall costs for the keeping stage 6 becomes: €5 to 6.5bn until 2025.

A ban of mains-voltage halogen lamps could have a negative effect on future savings...if consumers are
forced to use CFLi / LED as early as 2016, sockets will be blocked to further improvements of energy efficiency for the next 10/25 years

Savings in 2020 Abolishing stage 6 vs keeping stage 6 and moving to LED: 18.6-9.2= 9,4TWh
Savings in 2020 Abolishing stage 6 vs keeping stage 6 and moving to stage 6 MV-HL: 18.6-14.1= 4,5TWh
Savings until 2060 abolishing stage 6 vs keeping stage 6 and moving to LED: 252,9-218,4= 34,5TWh
Savings until 2060 Abolishing stage 6 vs keeping stage 6 and moving to stage 6 MV-HL: 221,9-218,4= 3,5TWh

They understandably still welcome LED development of course...

LightingEurope is convinced that the increasing “ledification” of light and the related disruptive changes to the entire lighting sector should be seen as opportunities for the European lighting industry.

As a critical aside, to what is obviously otherwise a surprisingly positive statement:
To the extent a push for LEDs might be backed by campaigns, subsidies and maintained existing regulations as on regular incandescents, one might ask if that means a ledification....or leadification of the light bulb sector
Both literally and metaphorically.

Literally in the lead content of LEDs
Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of California, USA analysis:
Excessive levels of copper (up to 3892 mg/kg; allowable limit: 2500), Pb (up to 8103 mg/kg; limit: 1000), nickel (up to 4797 mg/kg; limit: 2000), or silver (up to 721 mg/kg; limit: 500), rendering all except low-intensity yellow LEDs hazardous....

Metaphorically, in dulling down a lighting industry, by decreasing rather than increasing choice and competition between different technologies (also by focused subventions on LEDs to the exclusion of alternatives) leaving the LEDs as some sort of sole saviour of humanity.

Bluish LED light forms are already taking over as car headlights, bicycle lamps, torches (flashlights), and at this time, Christmas lights - and not always with a pleasant or even useful light quality.

LED development, in overcoming some of its disadvantages, is welcome and useful - but not to the exclusion of all else.
All lighting has advantages and disadvantages.
It is good and welcome that Philips, Osram and others are beginning to recognize this.
If they haven't quite "seen the light", they have at least shown some "illuminating" development.
 


Finally,
any continued allowance of halogen lighting should include frosted, softer tone (EU term "non-clear") light bulbs, needlessly banned along with all other such incandescent bulbs. They were by far the most popular bulbs before the ban, with less point source glare.
It might be said that stage 6 only deals with already specified halogens. But - as from the EU Commission's own proposal ("extending the stage 6 requirements to halogen lamps with G9 and R7s socket") this does not hold up: the Commission themselves already added clauses, in terms of banning GP and R7s socket bulbs, and in mandating LED compatibility of new fixtures.
So clearly (or non-clearly!) they could move to alter stage 6 requirements to allow such halogen light bulbs.

Even in the underlying research report, the point is made by one of the consultants behind it that such light bulbs are often more - not less - energy efficient than the clear transparent bulbs

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 non-clear alternatives, but the overall point remains.
Frosted brightness will depend on luminescence and thickness of coating in being more or less energy efficient. Overall, it is a marginal issue, as also acknowledged by the EU Commission:
The original ban argument that "people can buy CFLs/LEDs if they want non-clear lamps" obviously ignores all the other reasons why particular lighting is chosen.
The EU legislators often say they are not the only ones banning bulbs.
But no other jurisdiction than the EU maintains such a petty specific ban on frosted light bulbs.



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.
 

Incandescents = The Real Green Bulbs

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.
Power plant emissions are decreasing on present policies, both from alternative source use and in directly being reduced and treated in various ways.

The main evening-night time use of incandescent bulbs only consume small amounts of off-peak surplus capacity electricity anyway, as referenced.
Even then, base loading coal power plant minimum night cycle levels means that basically the same coal is burned, regardless of light bulb choice.



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.
 

Surprising Support for Incandescents to Remain Available in the European Union

While looking through online reporting about the EU ban, I made a rather surprising discovery.
Surprising, because these two "Green" politician signatories were among the strongest supporters of the EU regulations as I also found in previous communications with both of them (the story of how the EU banned the bulb, http://ceolas.net/#euban).

From former Green MEP (now member of UK Parliament) Caroline Lucas site, original document, copy embedded below.

Note the request that incandescents might remain available in pharmacies for those with special medical needs (rather like California marijuana medical need laws)
"Hey I really do suffer with the light from fluorescents and LEDs... "

source  123rf.com

Given their reaction to the current industrial incandescent workaround (incandescents for industrial use being available to domestic users), the European Commission is probably going to give a rather muted welcome to possible medical workarounds.

That is of course not to say that light sensitivity sufferers are not worthy of consideration and respect, but when was "consideration" or "respect" ever words found in the Brussels Eurocrat Companion Dictionary of Employment.



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.
 

On How the Brussels Brigade don't follow their own Directives

Image via Peter Stenzel, from the Austrian Der Standard newspaper section "Der Lochgott" as a comment to the 1.9.2012 EU ban on regular incandescent light bulbs

"Just what I've been missing.. energy saving glow worms!"

Probably allowed on EU energy usage requirement... as long as they are not too bent.

The Greenwashing Lamps site has been running a series of very readable posts lately on the EU ban and surrounding issues.

Note for example how the UK DEFRA "FAQ" is taken apart:
While the essence of the replies there will be familiar to readers of this blog, there is plenty more statistical back-up, in particular relating to the European Union.

Given the recent "final" EU ban on regular incandescents for general household lighting, and the supposed review in 2014 on the effects of the ban (the importance of which was also covered in the last Save the Bulb blog post), it is worth remembering that the EU did actually lay down some criteria that were supposed to be fulfilled...


Quoting edited excerpts from Ceolas.net, mainly ceolas.net/#li21x, written at the time...

The ban on ordinary light bulbs is only the start of a flurry of promised bans on energy using products in general, organized by the aptly Orwellian sounding "Ecodesign Committee".
Committee employed researchers Bogdan Atanasiu and Paolo Bertoldi have hunted out ever more household products to ban on the basis of energy usage (the link is to their own pdf presentation, updated following the light bulb ban, admittedly with amusing drawings of "antiquated" products in a museum...)

Yet, the Committee is breaking the EU Parliament and Ministerial Council directives with such bans, given how the energy efficiency regulations affect product characteristics, product choice, cost to consumers, industry competitiveness and so on as dealt with earlier.

21 October 2009, Framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (pdf document), Article 15, point 5:

Implementing measures shall meet all the following criteria:
(a) there shall be no significant negative impact on the functionality of the product, from the perspective of the user;
(b) health, safety and the environment shall not be adversely affected;
(c) there shall be no significant negative impact on consumers in particular as regards the affordability and the life cycle cost of the product;
(d) there shall be no significant negative impact on industry’s competitiveness;
(e) in principle, the setting of an ecodesign requirement shall not have the consequence of imposing proprietary technology on manufacturers; and
(f) no excessive administrative burden shall be imposed on manufacturers.

Taking each one

(a) there shall be no significant negative impact on the functionality of the product, from the perspective of the user
"Product" being lighting subject to energy usage standard in this case, clearly there is "negative impact on the functionality".
Bright omnidirectional broad spectrum incandescents don't have functional equivalents (halogens also being phased out).
The regulators are not unaware of this, hence the word significant: which can mean pretty well anything you want (again, as the regulators of course know).


(b) health, safety and the environment shall not be adversely affected
As CFLs are the main pushed replacement, one can put serious doubts there.
Interestingly, they did not put "significantly" affected. Must have spilled their coffee in their committee room at the time, the Brussel Boyos.


(c) there shall be no significant negative impact on consumers in particular as regards the affordability and the life cycle cost of the product
Order restored, back to "significant" again.
Also note the use of "the affordability and the life cycle cost", not just "affordability", and not "affordability or life cycle cost". So any complaint of say "high prices of LED replacements" can be met with "but you save money in the long run" - never mind how long that run!


(d) there shall be no significant negative impact on industry’s competitiveness
This is an interesting one.
You ban the cheap competition of simple generic patent expired products that any small local manufacturer can make, leaving the complex patented products by the major manufacturers who lobbied for the ban, outsourced and licenced as they desire.
But of course the word "significant" saves the day again.


(e) in principle, the setting of an ecodesign requirement shall not have the consequence of imposing proprietary technology on manufacturers
Again the "in principle" is a nice mean-anything-at-all arrangement.
Presumably this was in response to some high profile criticism of EU regulations at that time (one apparently involving a child safety seat by a European manufacturer who happened to lobby for and push through a safety standard exactly fitting their patented product).
It is rather the other way round therefore:
"manufacturers shall not impose their proprietary technology...." ;-)
With lighting standards, as seen from the regulation history in the USA, EU and elsewhere with the UN's en.lighten initiative, and as specifically covered in the Austrian film "Bulb Fiction" recently.


(f) no excessive administrative burden shall be imposed on manufacturers
Well, there is not too much risk of that, surely ;-)
Any "burden" has been entirely of their own making, from their extensive lobbying.

Susanne Hammarström of Sweden was head of a Brussels based PR agency Diplomat-PR engaged in the lobbying.
Translated from the largest Swedish business paper, Dagens Industri:
"The ban would never have happened, without the large and extensive lobby campaign, in all member countries, as well as towards The European Commission and the media", Susanne Hammarström says.
She believes that a voluntary switchover to energy saving lamps would have been the preferred policy, without the systematic lobbying work."

The mentioned film Bulb Fiction has more on the involvement of manufacturers, including how their representatives were allowed to sit in on EU decision-making meetings, to the surprise of participants...


A further look at the document reveals other points of interest
regarding article 15...and about the replacing products (fluorescent light bulbs being the main suggested replacement, both at the time of legislation, and since)

the [fluorescent light bulb] product shall, considering the quantities placed on the
market and/or put into service, have a significant environmental impact within the Community
Sure, a "significant impact" in the sense that dumping them increases local mercury contamination!
Conversely, any energy/emission savings impact is minimal as extensively and institutionally referenced even from their own EU data as covered in the "How Bans are Wrongly Justified" section.
A fraction of 1% EU energy and emission saving - even that questionable - is difficult to construe as "significant", even by the pickiest of picky bureaucrats.

the Commission shall consider the life cycle of the [fluorescent light bulb] product and all its significant environmental aspects
Again, in that case the whole mercury mining, manufacturing, transport, recycling (or dumping)
scenario should be examined, but won't, because we are dealing with Brussels Bureaucrats who like to tell people what to do, but don't like to follow their own advice...


Greenwashing Lamps has therefore also been looking at this, with a recent update (Aug 2012) of the Directive, and how the recommended fluorescent lighting (CFLs) do not meet the
requirements.

Sermon from the Mount... the EU Governing Holy Cross Building, Brussels Berlaymont
"Arise, Light up your light bulb, and Stumble"

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...

 

SaveTheBulb on The Incandescent Light Bulb Ban

A welcome new post by lighting designer Kevan Shaw, a recognized "stakeholder" by the EU Commission and their EcoDesign Committee legislating about light bulbs, and who therefore has had the pleasure - or not - of sitting in on many meetings with them....

The incandescent lamp is dead...
Long live the incandescent lamp!

September 1, 2012

Today sees the implementation of the final phase of the EcoDesign regulation outlawing the “Placing on the Market” of conventional domestic incandescent lamps. As has happened in the last couple of years I have been fielding phone calls from various media whose idea of a story seems largely limited to finding people who are hoarding vast quantities of old lamps.

So what are we left with?
Currently in the UK there still seems to be some availability of even 60W and 100W lamps. The big retailers such as DIY sheds and supermarkets do not have any, however local retailers, corner shops and pound stores seem to have continuing stocks. Surprisingly some of these seem to be coming from major players, Philips particularly seem well represented.

Exceptions from the ban include “specialist lamps.” These include lamps for domestic appliances such as ovens, cooker hoods, refrigerators and the like. Some of these applications, particularly ovens, are just too hostile an environment for any of the energy saving technologies to survive, it is likely that these lamps will be around for a while. Another class of lamps excepted are the “Rough Service” type. These are intended for applications where vibration, heat, rough handling and similar things are encountered. They tend to have thicker filaments with more supports. This results in them being markedly less efficient than conventional incandescent lamps but also many have specifically long service lives easily challenging the boasts of the Compact Fluorescent lamp of 8 to 10 years and treading on the toes of some LED replacements. At least one UK lamp supplier is pushing the bounds of this exception by offering rough service “Candle” shaped lamps. We also see Rough Service lamps on the shelves of bigger DIY sheds and very visible at retailers like Halfords and Maplin who, arguably, have stocked these as specialist products for years.

The other “incandescent” lamp type that remains available are the Halogen energy savers. For the most part these are a really good substitute providing comparable light output and colour performance with a typical 30% energy saving. Unfortunately some suppliers are selling rather poor quality products that fail to meet the performance claimed, however that happens everywhere.

What of the future?
The current regulations are required to be reviewed in 2014. It is inevitable that there will be pressure to increase the performance requirements and potential “loopholes,” such as the rough service lamps, will be addressed particularly if it is obvious that these are supplying a greater proportion of the market than might be expected.

Is the ban achieving its goals?
That rather depends on who you are and what your aims were in promoting the legislation. As a strategy for energy saving i believe it is a total failure. Despite researching and indirectly asking questions at the political level there seems absolutely no evidence that there is any energy saving attributable to this legislation. It is important that people continue to ask politicians for evidence on this. We cannot allow the review to take place without some realistic evidence on whether or not energy savings have been achieved.

From the lamp industry perspective the ban has been very effective in removing a low profit margin cheap product from the market and replacing it with a selection of relatively high priced and higher profit margin products. What they may not have achieved is quite the profitability they expected due to the shift in manufacture to the far east. The majority of CFLs and LEDs are made in factories not owned outright by the old lamp manufacturers. These companies are now largely middle men doing deals with Chinese lamp factories who brand and package products with the big names we are familiar with.

From an environmental perspective we are seeing a big failure.
We have replaced a simple, relatively inert product that can be safely dumped in landfills with a variety of products that contain Mercury, plastics that are not re-cycleable but use oil in their manufacture and considerable amounts of electronic components. Neither is there a suitable infrastructure to recover these lamps at end of life nor is there any effective form of compulsion for users to ensure they are disposed of correctly. Europe is also directly importing tonnes of mercury from China each year but has also banned exporting it so even of there was a suitable infrastructure there is no way of ensuring recovery and re-use of this material from lamps.

We may be seeing the end of this phase of legislation, however we need to continue to question this legislation and ensure that the review required is properly done and that all these issues are properly dealt with. Please do write to your MEP and question this legislation if you do there is a chance that things will go no further, if you don’t and the Eurocrats get away with this you can bet they will think up something even more stupid in pretty short order!

Kevan Shaw 1 September 2012

Comment

The point about regulations not actually saving energy for society is of course important to make, but should be obvious enough to readers of this blog, this and much else also being covered on the "How Bans are Wrongly Justified" page, with extensive references.


To comment on some other points..

So what are we left with? Currently in the UK there still seems to be some availability of even 60W and 100W lamps....
At least one UK lamp supplier is offering rough service “Candle” shaped lamps. We also see Rough Service lamps on the shelves of bigger DIY sheds and very visible at retailers like Halfords and Maplin...

Indeed there seem still to be reasonable UK supplies of incandescents, and rough service types are being made and marketed and sold to households - all of which may of course change in time.
There was reported suspicion that imports and distributor stock of incandescents was substantially boosted before the ban axe came down, starting September 2009, a logical enough assumption for what after all is (or was) the most popular form of domestic lighting, though (perhaps unsurprisingly) I cannot find any evidence of it.
The media are now similarly saying that Bell and other manufacturers are "ramping up production of rough service bulbs"... so perhaps if any ban decision comes, stocks will again last a long while (which incidentally yet again puts a dent in supposed savings, from people refusing to do what they "should", as good Europeans).
On UK (and, by inference, EU open market) bulb availability including special candle types also in rough service format, see the recent August 30 post here
"UK/EU Distributors Clarify: Candle, Golf Ball and other Incandescents also to Stay Available".

Surprisingly some of these [remaining incandescent lamps] seem to be coming from major players, Philips particularly seem well represented

Philips, GE, and Osram/Sylvania manufacturers lobbied for and welcomed the ban, see the Ceolas industrial politics section, and more on their activities since can be seen by say putting say "Philips" in the search box of this blog.

As said before, there is nothing at all wrong in manufacturer seeking profits.
However, as also seen, they seem to get unnecessarily good help from politicians, to the detriment of consumers, not just with regulations, but in all the subsidised replacement programs, including in developing countries where the hapless citizens can't afford the bulbs that other citizens have rejected (or bans would not be "necessary" from insufficient voluntary purchases).

There is also the specific irony of Philips (and maybe others) selling "legal "California" 95 Watt bulbs, given that they handily slipped in with Greenpeace and others to campaign for an incandescent ban that started with 100 Watt bulbs, to help Save the Earth
("Save Our Profit" probably does not garner the same potential support ;-)).

The other “incandescent” lamp type that remains available are the Halogen energy savers. For the most part these are a really good substitute providing comparable light output and colour performance with a typical 30% energy saving.

However, as Kevan has himself pointed out, the Halogens are also slated for a ban.
By 2016 all "general service" replacement type Halogens in the EU are effectively banned from the standards set
(Tip from the politicians and their hangaround bureaucrat friends: If you don't want to seem nasty by inflicting a "ban" on the idiot citizens you have the misfortune to rule, just set a "standard" that is impossible to meet)

From an environmental perspective we are seeing a big failure. We have replaced a simple, relatively inert product that can be safely dumped in landfills with a variety of products that contain Mercury, plastics that are not re-cycleable but use oil in their manufacture and considerable amounts of electronic components. Neither is there a suitable infrastructure to recover these lamps at end of life nor is there any effective form of compulsion for users to ensure they are disposed of correctly.

Yes, how amazing that Our Dear Beloved Leaders (bows head in gratitude) do not think of the consequences of their actions.

Europe is also directly importing tonnes of mercury from China each year but has also banned exporting it so even of there was a suitable infrastructure there is no way of ensuring recovery and re-use of this material from lamps.

This is an interesting aspect I have not seen raised before.
If Chinese citizens are suffering so much in the local extraction, processing and use of mercury in lamp making, then why not let them have the mercury back - after all, it is already there, in environmental terms.
If you live in Brussels, don't bother trying to understand this.

What of the future?
The current regulations are required to be reviewed in 2014.
It is inevitable that there will be pressure to increase the performance requirements and potential “loopholes,” such as the rough service lamps, will be addressed particularly if it is obvious that these are supplying a greater proportion of the market than might be expected...
It is important that people continue to ask politicians for evidence [of energy saving]. We cannot allow the review to take place without some realistic evidence on whether or not energy savings have been achieved...
Please do write to your MEP and question this legislation if you do there is a chance that things will go no further, if you don’t and the Eurocrats get away with this you can bet they will think up something even more stupid in pretty short order!

Worth highlighting... no comment needed really.
Ways in which people can make their objections known, not just in the EU but in the USA and elsewhere also, is gradually being listed on a "page" on this blog, see the left hand column.

 

BULB Fiction Film

Updates 17 July, 18 July, 8 August, 9 August.
Also updated 2014 regarding DVD and online availability.

The documentary portrays the power and machinations of the light bulb industry, as well as the resistance against the "Directive for the regulation of lighting products in private households." It's about the profit greed of the industry and their lobbies, the entanglement of politics, the environmental hypocrisy, and about deliberate misinformation.

It is also about the fundamental question of whether the quality of the visual environment, and thus our quality of life, is subordinate to other concerns. The quality of surrounding light represents a value not to be underestimated, a value that one should not rashly sacrifice at the altar of a feel-good environmental conscience.

A fuller description can be seen towards the end of the post.

Having covered one online video light bulb documentary as originally in German, "The Lightbulb Conspiracy" by Cosima Dannoritzer (note: updated July 23), and indeed the recent Spring 2012 45 min 3Sat TV documentary Ausgebrannt - Vom Ende der Glühbirne (Burned Out - The End of the Incandescent), another one, which covers more issues, is "Bulb Fiction", made in Austria by director Christoph Mayr and by cameraman Moritz Gieselmann, who had the original idea.

Official film website Bulbfiction-derfilm.com, Google translation.
Fuller description of the film, in German, Google translation.

Alternative AustrianFilm site
Full press material in German .pdf format with pictures (alt link).
Similar, in sparser .doc format (alt link), Google translation.
Videotrailers "Trailer & Videomaterial" 14 videotrailers, listed by subject, .mov format
Audio clips "Soundbites", by the film director etc, .mp3 format
Photos "Bildmaterial", 53 photos from the film.


I originally heard of the Bulb Fiction film via Peter Stenzel in Vienna, Gluehbirne.ist.org website, which has good information and updates, including other trailers related to the film listed according to subject matter treated: in German, or with Google text translation.

This first video nicely introduces and summarizes the film.

Thanks to Howard Brandston for the tip about it, while Kevan Shaw of Savethebulb.org makes a distinguished appearance in the film itself, and indeed already in the trailer where he sees how bulbs are dealt with (not) at a supposed collection site!






The full 1 1/2 hour video below.

While of limited interest to English only speakers, it does contain some English language interviews and much graphical and other obvious information.
There is a DVD version via Amazon here. I am not aware of any English dubbed or subtitled version.

The original website (http://www.bulbfiction-derfilm.com/) has been abandoned and film-maker Moritz is linking to an online version, doing same below - it can also be seen via Vimeo here








Listing of the participants (bulbfiction-derfilm.com/protagonisten)
[or see Google translated English page version]

My translation of the film synopsis adding some own comments within the [ ] parenthesis:

2007 sees Greenpeace destroy 10 000 light bulbs in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin with a road roller.
The same destruction would not have been possible with "energy saving" bulbs: The mercury contained in 10,000 CFLs is enough to contaminate 50 million liters of drinking water - apart from the acute health hazard for activists and bystanders.

Why Greenpeace together with the lamp industry in Brussels exerted considerable pressure to ban the bulb, is one of the questions pursued in BULB FICTION, the investigative documentary by Christoph Mayr.
[In the film, and in part 2 of this trailer (.mov), Dr Klaus Stanjek, researcher and filmmaker (Cinetarium.de, bilingual site) tells how he was commissioned by Greenpeace Hamburg to investigate the Fluorescent bulbs, but he found them to be energy wasting rather than saving. The study in German, functional English version (link credits, Peter Stenzel, Kevan Shaw). Not exactly what was "required"!]

From September 2009, incandescent lamps of 100W bulbs or more, are banned - like all frosted incandescent bulbs regardless of wattage.
From September 2011 the 60W lamp types disappear, and from September 2012 other regular incandescent types.
Mains-voltage halogen lamps have a grace period and are then banned from autumn 2016.
[EU regulations in more detail, Ceolas.net/#li01inx]

How did we get here?
The industry needs sales, NGOs must prove to their donors that they can put their concerns into visible action, while the majority of politicians just look at which way the wind is blowing, for them there is rarely such a good opportunity to be feted as climate change protectors, as otherwise they would be interfering with powerful industries or such lobby interests.

Almost all who deal with the subject of intense light and its effect on people, health professionals, lighting designers, biologists are against the ban on incandescent lamps. But since they don't belong to any of the big lobbies, their protests go unheeded.
In BULB FICTION they have their say.


Already in 2007, the cameraman and lighting designer Moritz Gieselmann heard by chance that incandescent bulbs would be banned from an employee of the lamp manufacturer Osram, but he thought it to be just a bizarre rumor - who could come up with the idea to ban such a well-established and popular product, the simplicity and elegance of the bulb is unsurpassed to this day: A metal mounting of a glowing tungsten wire in a glass bulb filled with inert gas or vacuum - that's it.
[Moritz Gieselmann: Adieu, gute alte Glühbirne, Adieu, good old light bulb]

Then in 2008, with the impending ban on incandescent bulbs becoming news in all media, Gieselmann begins researching, and what he finds gives rise to a growing skepticism about the compact fluorescent lamp. The information in the media is incomplete, and so comes about the idea of making a feature documentary on the subject. The writer and director Christopher Mayr, at first skeptical about whether the topic isn't too dry, is soon enthusiastic, and with Thomas Bogner, there is a dedicated producer, so in the fall of 2011, as the disappearance of the 60W incandescent lamp becomes a reality, Bulb Fiction hits the cinemas.
[Christoph Mayr about the making of the film: in German, Google translation]

By Regulation (EC) 244/2009 of the EU, the ban on incandescent bulbs and therefore the practical necessity of buying fluorescent lamps became official. Christoph Mayr wanted to talk at the time with the relevant EU energy commissioner, Andris Piebalgs. He refuses, pointing out he is no longer in charge of the department of energy. Günter Oettinger, his successor, also refuses, on the basis that he only came into office after the ban [so it had nothing to do with him].
The relevant top official of the EU, Andras Toth, was stopped by his Commission superiors from stepping in front of the camera.
Only Marlene Holzner, spokeswoman for the EU Energy Commission, was allowed to answer the questions by Christoph Mayr. Because she is not very informed about the topic, she brings Andras Toth as an advisory prompter to help answer the questions - but he must not be filmed!

[So much for EU "openness, transparency and willingness to engage in dialogue"... the film also mentions how Osram, Philips, the EU commissioned VITO research organization, and the ELC light manufacturer cooperative (lobby) organization refused interviews]


That CFLs contain mercury, the EU knows full well. The fact that mercury is toxic, they know too, not for nothing were mercury thermometers banned, and indeed in the fall of 2008 in Austria and Germany, mercury thermometers were exchanged with alternatives for free.

The mercury in bulbs can be extremely toxic, is shown in BULB FICTION by the case of the four-year-old Max from Linden, an idyllic village in Upper Bavaria. After Max one night inhaled the gaseous mercury from the operation of a broken bulb, he gradually loses all his hair, even eyelashes and eyebrows, followed by tremor episodes and depression. Dr. Mutter from Constance, a specialist in mercury exposure, diagnosed mercury contamination, responsible in combination with other stress for these symptoms.
[UBA official German testing, on high mercury values from broken lamps, and other problems "DasErste, Plusminus: Glühlampen Verbot - Der Widerstand wächst", 2011 TV-report video in German]

Gary Zörner from Lafu Institute, who has long dealt with environmental toxins, sums it up: "Every tiny bit of mercury makes for a little bit more mental loss" - because it accumulates in the brain and nerve cells are destroyed, even if no limit is exceeded."

The limit of mercury in CFLs is a chapter in itself: it indeed exists, 5mg per lamp, but it isn't monitored. Christoph Seidel, spokesman of Megaman, which claims to be Europe's largest manufacturer of bulbs, says that one must trust the manufacturers, a control based on mutual trust...

VITO, the Belgian institute that has evaluated the lamps on behalf of the EU, reviewed the mercury content of a sample of just 5 (five) items. Here too no one wants to talk with Christoph Mayr.
[The VITO report: one of the five bulbs is seen to be over the limit at 6.4 mg, while some are only 1-2mg]

Dr. Georg Steinhauser, radiation physicist at the Technical University of Vienna, such a sample size is laughable and simply not serious. He determined to BULB FICTION the mercury content of a compact fluorescent lamp and criticized the official measurement method of the EU, which measures only the mercury adhering to the glass, but not the gaseous form, which escapes when the lamp is stripped down [for testing]: "It's as if to determine the amount of helium in a balloon I were to judge it on the basis of what adheres to the skin of the balloon."

VITO, which otherwise produced very optimistic results for the proponents of the ban on incandescent bulbs, estimates that 80% of the mercury from spent bulbs ends up in the environment.
[The film show that the EU Commission knew this from the VITO material presented to them, before a decision was made.
VITO "optimism" was surpassed by the Commission's own researcher Paolo Bertoldi in his final report, emphasising the "great savings" from directly pushing CFL replacements, more: Ceolas.net/#euban]

Once Europe is covered with compact fluorescent lamps, at least a million of these little poison containers must be disposed of every day. Multiplied by 5mg for each lamp, that means 146 tons of mercury spread everywhere in Europe.

But even the fifth of the burned-out bulbs which arrive intact at recycling plants, can do damage: Christoph Mayr does some film recording at the "Electrical Waste Recycling Group" in Huddersfield, England. The company was in June 2010 sentenced to a fine of 145,000 pounds, because of the mercury contamination of 20 employees, including a pregnant woman, from a long period of ventilation exposure of mercury. A former employee of the company says in the film that he one year afterwards still suffers from poor concentration, memory problems and depression.
[On Mercury clean-up and disposal procedures, Gad Giladi, former president of the Professional Lighting Designers Association is interviewed. He has a good paper covering this and other issues "Phasing-out” the Incandescents – Is the Public Misinformed or Disinformed?"]



Christoph Mayr does not let up.
Bulb FICTION leaves no question about saving light bulb and lamp unanswered.
In Berlin, he speaks with Helmut Höge of TAZ, who for a long time has extensively investigated Phoebus, the light bulbs cartel, founded in the 1920s. Phoebus was the first global cartel. It not only ensured the participating companies, including Osram, Philips and General Electric, profit margins and market share, it also ensured that the service life of incandescent lamps, 1500 hours during Thomas Edisons time at the end of the 19th Century, [2500 hours by 1924, 5000 hours in later examples] was comprehensively reduced to 1000 hours by 1935 [and has remained a 1000 hour standard] For member companies whose bulbs lasted too long there was an elaborate system of fines.

[Also in the film, interviews about the Phoebus (Phöbus) cartel with researcher Markus Krajewski - more about the Phoebus cartel and the continued manufacturer cooperation leading up to the incandescent ban in the USA as well as the EU, see http://ceolas.net/#phoebuspol]

In the early 1990s, Dieter Binninger, inventor and industrialist from Berlin, developed a light bulb that held the same performance as the conventional 1000-hour lamp, yet lasted for 150,000 hours. Just days after he has submitted a bid via a Trust for a former East German lamp factory, he died 1991 in a plane crash. The cartel researcher Rudolf Mirow wrote in 1992 to Birgit Breuel, the head of the Trust: "There is reason to believe that the same cartel members have now carved up the market of the new German federal states between them ..." In 1993, Mirow died in a car accident in Indonesia.

[The Binninger bulb sounds too good to be true, and this seems so.
The patent referred to in the film is DE 3001755C2. Can be looked up on Depatisnet, http://depatisnet.dpma.de, German Patent Bureau, Text of patent Verfahren zur Verlängerung der Lebensdauer von Allgebrauchsglühlampen
A comment on the patent, as from Rudiger Appel, 3Quarks.com Hamburg, here, and other sources:
Basically, the criticism is that the life increase is by lowering the voltage, but power consumption (and presumably the current) rises to maintain the same brightness, so the cost increases too. To replace a standard 100W incandescent light bulb with a Binninger bulb of the same luminosity, supposedly needs 150 W of electrical power. an increased consumption of 50 kWh, at a price of 0.20 € / kWh that is 10 € for the 1000 hrs of a normal bulb....
Interestingly, the opposite of raising operating voltage and lowering current for given wattage also increases lifespan while reducing the light output, eg some "rough service" type bulbs.
Also, US 110 volt mains operated 100W standard bulbs are brighter than European 220 volt mains ones, being closer to 150W European, but have 750 hr standard life compared to 1000 European (pre-ban), though of course other production factors like filament thickness etc may enter into it.
However, as the film says, long-lasting incandescent bulbs of all kinds have been kept from ordinary consumers, and recent incandescent energy saving inventions have not been pursued by major manufacturers either, given the more profitable switchover lighting alternatives]



BULB FICTION also discusses the biological and medical aspects of light, there are significant differences in the quality of light from regular incandescent light bulbs and that of fluorescent lamps.
Incandescent light bulbs are known as thermal radiators: A tungsten filament is heated until it emits light, analogous to the sun and fire. And as with the natural sources the light and heat are inextricably linked, so it is with the bulb. But when the lighting industry in the 1930s was looking for a technical-physical definition of light, it reduced the term "light" to the visually perceptible fraction of the sun's radiation. That infrared light, the invisible part of this radiation, has an effect on our organism is not disputed. What side effects the absence of infrared light can have, is still largely unexplored. Professor Richard Funk [website] is on the board of the Anatomical Institute of the University of Dresden. In 2009 he published a study in which he puts forward the hypothesis that blue components in light from new lighting sources, which are unaccompanied by infrared, can contribute to the emergence of macular degeneration in the eye. In experiments, he demonstrates that blue light can damage retinal cells, however, infrared stimulates cells to repair themselves.

[Funk, Wunsch, Lachenmayr Makuladegeneration & Energiesparlampen, Macular Degeneration & Energy Saving Bulbs The fact that fluorescents, as in the film, demonstrably lacks infrared radiation is typically commented "hey, look, no heat waste from them!" - as for example in this German ARD TV program "Kopfball" video (second half) - forgetting that the CFL heat output (80% v 95% incandescent) is internalized in the ballast, giving the greater unpredictable fire risk from the bulbs http://ceolas.net/#li18eax.
Moritz Gieselmann adds on his website "There is also a psychological factor: Since in the spectrum of light bulbs, the red components are underrepresented, the person perceives his environment as cool - and turns the heating up."
As Halogenica comments on the subject, this may also be a factor why resistance to the ban is greater in Northern Europe, the incandescent reddish warm light spectrum not desired in warmer climates, where people anyway spend less time indoors in smaller living areas and have less dark winters etc, http://ceolas.net/#li11x - frosted incandescent light bulbs, the first to be banned, are also much more popular in Northern than in Southern Europe, as I was informed by Osram and Philips sales departments]

The light of fluorescent lamps is missing not only in the infrared region, they have 3 or 5-energy peaks in the visible spectrum range, with darkness in between, as the physician, Dr. Alexander Wunsch, who has extensively looked at the health aspects of light, demonstrates.
The result is also poor color rendition - because objects can only reflect the light with which they are illuminated in the first place. From the lack of certain colors in the light, surfaces in these colors appear pale and washed out.
[More: Alexander Wunsch, Ja zur Glühlampe Google translation, from his Lichtbiologie (Light Biology) website]

Wolfgang Maes, building biologist from Neuss, tests the CFL on behalf of Ökotest, with startling results: The value ​​of the electromagnetic pollution is up to 15 times higher than allowed by the TCO standard for screen displays.

[Wolfgang Maes also demonstrates that CFL flimmering and flickering has not disappeared with the electronic ballasts as supposed, it is just not visible to the naked eye.
His paper Die dunklen Seiten der Energiesparlampen, summarized as a newspaper article, good run-through of CFL issues, the pdf document texts can be copy-pasted into Google etc translation services.
CFL brightness: Mr Maes measurements, like others, show the common CFL to incandescent 1:5 wattage assumption (eg 15W CFL supposed to be as bright as a 75W bulb) is more like 1:3 or generously 1:4
The film also points out that CFLs lose brightness with use, and interestingly, how old people's yellowing eye lenses absorbing blue light means the CFL's appear still dimmer to them]


In Brussels, Christoph Mayr speaks with Holger Krahmer [Holger-Krahmer.de, translated], a German MEP from Leipzig, who spoke out as the first European politician against the ban on the incandescent light bulbs. For him it is incomprehensible as being part of democratic politics, that it is politically decided which products may be used by citizens and which may not. The ban reminds him of the dictatorial planned economy of the GDR that he experienced [Leipzig is in the former East Germany]. Also a lot seen on a specific trailer (.mov) of his contribution.

Max Otte, financial journalist and professor of economics: "This Europe is a Europe of big business, that long since took over the reins of power!"

In the meantime, Sigmar Gabriel, German Environment Minister, allegedly one of the driving forces behind the ban on incandescent bulbs, handed out thousands of compact fluorescent lamps from Osram in the last federal election campaign.



Unswervingly Christoph Mayr pursues the investigative leads, meticulously all the details on the subject are edited together.

How to find the nearest collection point for electronic waste?
Not always as easy as one might imagine. Is really everything done to avoid the toxic mercury escaping into the environment?
(Kevan Shaw goes with a neatly packed fluorescent bulb to a disposal site... no prize for guessing what happens]

Do the high values given to the life expectancy of CFLs really hold up?
[No, as Kevan Shaw also points out... the reasons include that on-off switching in real life exceeds the 3 hour lab test cycles, and that brightness decreases with use, shortening effective lifespan]

Is the so-called quicksilver paradox true, that mercury-free incandescent bulbs are actually responsible for more mercury release into the environment via coal power plants than the mercury-containing compact fluorescent lamps are responsible for?
[No, and never was, for many reasons, Ceolas.net/#li198x, Kevan for example pointing out how some coal mercury remains fixed in the burned ash and chimney (flue) wall]

What is the Heat Replacement Effect?
[The replacement by incandescent heat of room heat generated from other sources, the film mentions UK research (more on the topic http://ceolas.net/#li6x) and also how the effect increases with modern buildings... ironically all todays "energy saving insulation" as in ceilings and attics, increases such energy saving heat benefit, while use with air conditioning cooling of course is optional and might be preferred anyway for light quality etc reasons]

And what effect will the mercury lamps have for people in developing countries?
[The film illustrates with the situation in India, Christoph interviews Ravi Agarwal, founder of Toxics Link, amongst others who themselves report that Indian CFL industry puts consumers at great risk, average content per CFL found to be 21.2 mg, much higher than international standards... the film also shows how CFLs are openly dumped]


At the end of BULB FICTION the makers of Heatball [Heatball.de, smaller English version] present their campaign, turning the argument on its head that light bulbs give off 95% of the energy as heat radiation, in order to sell bulbs as small heaters that just happen to give off some light:
"Heat Ball is also a resistance against the disproportionality of measures to protect our environment. How can you seriously believe that we help save the planet's climate by using energy saving light bulbs, while allowing rain forests to wait in vain for decades for any real protection?"
The European-German bureaucracy are out of their depth in adequately trying to deal with these engaged citizens and their performance art, resorting to public order mandates, financial penalties, and seizure of the Heat balls.


Bulb Fiction,
is a film for engaged citizens who are not satisfied just to be angry about what is happening, but want to be better informed, helping them reach a more educated opinion of what this is all about.

Film Director Christoph Mayr sums up the experience...
end of his statement, my translation.

Having intensively pursued the subject, I am convinced that [EU] industry representatives, in our case the light bulb manufacturers, carefully plan what they do and are aware of the dangers of compact fluorescent lamps. I am equally convinced that the manufacturers try on the one hand to hide these dangers, and on the other hand to downplay them, should they become public.
The findings from my research are applicable in other areas. The topic "Energy saving light bulbs" is a great way to show the methods and the cold-bloodedness of major industries.

Is Bulb Fiction therefore a film about lamps? No, Bulb Fiction is a film about power and the abuse of power, about people who oppose large, powerful institutions, big corporations, and big government. Bulb Fiction is a film about moral courage and mature conduct. The film wants to be a dissenting voice to the already well underway mighty million costing advertising campaigns of the lamp industry, a voice of enlightenment, if you will.

Bulb Fiction tries nothing less than to bring light to the truth.

Christoph Mayr, September 2011

The Heat Ball campaign mentioned has been covered in several posts here,
the main ones being the last one here, and this here, "We want to shed more heat than light!", from which also the following...

"All the lads" behind the two ventures

Rudolf Hannot (Heatball), Christoph Mayr (Bulb Fiction), Siegfried Rotthäuser (Heatball),
and Moritz Gieselmann (Bulb Fiction)

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.