The Brandston Research Team’s Fluorescent Light Bulb Study

 
From Send Your Light Bulbs To Washington, March 27 post, extracts.

Howard Brandston is a well known New York lighting designer, and is the Congress consultant of choice when they holding hearings into light bulb matters.

The following information is from his website commentary.
As mentioned in a previous post, he is shortly launching a campaign against the light bulb regulations on a Facebook page, details which will appear on the above website link.
Given his status, it will hopefully get a good following.

Research into the Effects and Implications of Increased CFL Use

In September 2009, I assembled a first-class team of doctors and researchers to study the implications of the wide-spread use of CFLs. Supported in part with a grant from the IES, the primary intention was to determine if further investigation and research is warranted to re-examine the direction of current and proposed lighting related legislation. Our study included:

• A literature search of the health hazards post by Electro-magnetic Fields
• Measurements of the fields generated by CFLs
• Measurements of EMF's at installations
• Creation of a detailed list of potential problems stemming from installed CFL usage
• An analysis of actual installation system efficiencies – CFL vs. Incandescent
• An illustration of dimmer induced SPD shifts with CFLs. Illustrated with SPDs.

Our findings fully support that further research must be done. The full research report [originally published March 2010] is available here. The document is large — 3MB (.pdf).
http://www.concerninglight.com/2010-03_Final-Report_comprehensive.pdf

RE " further research must be done", it may be noted that Canada has indeed delayed a ban for (at least) 2 years, in part because of CFL concerns, more:
http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/11/canada-delay-to-2014-its-official.html


Introduction and Conclusion excerpts from the Brandston team study:

The main purpose of the study is to determine if more research is required before the ban on ordinary incandescent lamps takes effect. If it is determined that it would be in the best interest of the country to conduct further studies, then the ban and the restrictions placed on the incandescent lamp should be withdrawn and held in abeyance, until a solid basis can be determined as to what the best course of action be taken to meet the spirit of the act.
All funding by the several government entities promoting the use of CFLs should also cease until there is careful evaluation of relevant CFLs characteristics and comparison with incandescent lamps.

We assembled an experienced interdisciplinary team, fully capable of delivering proposed investigation and research.

Report prepared by:
Howard M. Brandston, FIES, Hon. FCIBSE, FIALD, PLDA, SLL, LC
Philip Brickner, MD St. Vincent’s Hospital
Sasa Djokic, PhD Univ. of Edinburgh
Richard Vincent St. Vincent’s Hospital
Scott Bucher St. Vincent’s Hospital
Heather Auto St. Vincent’s Hospital
Kate Sweater Hickcox Lighting Research Center, RPI


CFLs are not the superior replacement for incandescent lamps, neither in conservation or aesthetics.
Nor is the CFL an equivalent light source technology.
As an indicator of lamp efficiency, lumens-per-watt has been extensively used as a comparative metric to promote the energy advantages of light sources. However, this is flawed because no meaningful conclusions can come from measuring and quantifying an individual type of light source on its own. Lumens-per-watt does not capture any qualitative characteristics, nor does it express the actual performance level of any light source used in practical applications. Most importantly, it does not represent the actual illuminating and spectral properties of a given light source. Lumens-per-watt is simply an idealized quantifier obtained in laboratory measurement, which is often used isolated from other light source characteristics and out of context with the lighting applications under which people live and work. What is really needed is an incandescent lamp with today’s lumen output but with longer life.

Generally, there are no bad light sources, only bad applications.
There are some very laudable characteristics of the CFL, yet the selection of any light source remains inseparable from the luminaire that houses it, along with the space in which both are installed and lighting requirements that need to be satisfied. In the pursuit of more useful lumens-per-watt metric, one must match the luminaire to the space being illuminated.
The lamp, the fixture and the room: all three must work in concert and for the true benefits of end-users. If the CFL should be used for lighting a particular space, or an object within that space, the fixture must be designed to work with that lamp, and that fixture with the room. It is a symbiotic relationship.
A CFL cannot be simply installed in an incandescent fixture and then expected to produce a visual appearance that is more than washed out, foggy and dingy. The whole fixture must be replaced -- light source and luminaire -- and this is never an inexpensive proposition.


Conclusion
“It is wrong to assume that banning the incandescent lamp is an energy- and ecologically conscious action. We have not solved all our lighting problems by finding a highly efficient source. There is presently no lighting technology that can replace certain types and uses of incandescent lamps.”
[ref, IALD]

This study challenges current political consensus and decision to phase out incandescent lamps and switch to CFLs on the assumption that significant energy savings will be achieved without seriously compromising any of the relevant functional and illuminating requirements in target applications. Moreover, and more importantly, the study points out that there is a need to carefully investigate and elucidate some of the important safety concerns that may arise from a prolonged exposure and widespread use of CFLs, of which levels of electromagnetic fields measured around these appliances are illustrated in more detail. (N.B. an initial measurement of approximately 50 DB from a 13W CFL)


We propose the following simple test that may actually provide an effective method for determining whether the legislation will actually serve people:

- Initiate a field study aimed at satisfying the proposed power limits in all public buildings, from museums and hospitals to the White House, and the homes of all elected officials.
- As this will include replacing all incandescent lamps with CFLs, it would be easy to directly ascertain the effects of the proposed legislation/ban.
- Assure that all of these measures to comply with specified power limits in residential units are done and paid for solely by the occupants, i.e. that occupants may freely decide on the use of specific equipment and devices
- At the end of sufficiently long period (e.g. 18 months) check whether the incandescent lighting had not been reinstalled, and perform a detailed survey with all users to determine their overall satisfaction with the initial, intermediate and resulting lighting.
- This will help to identify specific target applications for different light sources, as they will be selected by end-users, based on their needs and requirements.
- In parallel with this field study, initiate and perform detailed research related to determining quantitative and qualitative characteristics of CFLs and other alternative light sources (e.g. LED light sources), as well as the comparative analysis of their relevant aspects and most important effects of use.

Based on the data collected from the above field/labs studies, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and current lighting related energy legislation still in Congress may be amended, if necessary, to conform to the results of the studies. We expect that the current and proposed legislation would be rewritten in favor of a new act, which will be based on the result of a thoughtful process that could yield a set of proven recommendations that will better serve our nation’s needs by maximizing both human health, environmental satisfaction and energy efficiency. In the end, the most energy effective solution for residences may be achieved using incandescent lamps with a combination of occupancy sensors and dimmers.

As the post also makes clear, regarding the obvious retort of
"incandescents are not banned, energy efficient halogen types allowed",
or
"better LEDs are coming",
and other arguments used to justify bans,
see the 13 point referenced rundown of why the arguments don't hold up below this post,
or on the dedicated page
 

US sales of CFLs have fallen since 2007

 
Thank you to Howard Brandston for this information, via his Facebook page (the "wall" page can be read by anybody logged in).
Incidentally, keep a watch on Howard's website commentary - he is shortly launching a campaign on a new Facebook page. Given his status as renowned lighting designer and congressional consultant on lighting matters, it will hopefully get a good following.

Last week NEMA, the electrical equipment association to which light bulb manufacturers belong and which (as not least seen from Howard's e-book) was heavily involved in pushing for and welcoming the "phase out" of simple incandescent bulbs, published a US sales lighting report.
It not only covers the last quarter of 2011, but also all previous years as useful chart data.

Shipments of Incandescent Lamps Illuminate at the Close of 2011

NEMA’s indexes for incandescent and compact fluorescent (CFL) lamp shipments increased by 29.4 and 3.6 percent, respectively, during Q4 2011 compared to Q3 2011. Incandescent lamp shipments posted a year-over-year gain of 41 percent while CFLs declined by 6.6 percent. The calendar year comparison also showed divergent paths. Shipments of CFLs decreased by 6.6 percent compared to 2010. Conversely, incandescent lamp shipments rose 16.4 percent during 2011. A preponderance–62.1 percent–of the increase over last year occurred during Q4.

Incandescent lamps increased its share of the combined incandescent-CFL market registering a reading of 82.8 percent. Meanwhile, the share of CFLs decreased to 17.2 percent –a ratio of slightly less than one in six lamps sold. The increase in the foothold by incandescent lamps is likely to continue while the new efficiency regulations established by EISA 2007 are phased-in over the next few years. CFLs and other substitute lamp types such as halogen A-Line and LED lamps are then expected to carve out increasing shares of the traditional A-Line market.

Comment

Since NEMA is for the ban, this is hardly biased in favor of incandescents
(besides, either big or small incandescent sales speak against a ban,
big sales = why ban what people prefer,
small sales = why ban when people are voluntarily switching anyway, little savings from a ban).

The relative incandescent sales rise during 2011 is indeed probably related to the growing awareness of the light bulb ban, as NEMA say.

However, what is of greater interest is the stagnation and even relative fall of CFL sales since the 2007 boost, a boost from the extensive subsidy and rebate introduced at the time of the 2007 EISA regulations (the extensive USA CFL promotion campaigns are documented on http://ceolas.net/#li12ax onwards).

In other words, despite the continuation and increase of all the CFL promotion campaigns, subsidies, rebates, handouts etc they are still no more popular.
The sales and market shares of both incandescents and CFLs have held remarkably steady, a slight fall in each perhaps being due to LED sales.

A reasonable reply is that CFLs might be liked, at least if subsidised and handed out, but are simply not suitable for all locations:
Hot or cold ambience, vibration, dampness, enclosed spaces, recesses, existing dimming circuits, timers, movement sensor switching, use in chandeliers and small and unusual lamps, aesthetical use if clear bulbs are preferred, rare usage when cheaper bulbs are preferred - and so on - apart from light quality differences,
particularly noticeable when dimming.

Yes, expensive halogen incandescent alternatives may be offered - but they still have differences to simple cheap incandescents (running hotter and whiter for example), and will as seen from the regulations (http://ceolas.net/#li01inx) also come to be banned for ordinary usage
in the second phase of the 2007 EISA regulations following on after 2014, a phase out which as seen also applies to the European Union.
While the above data does not differentiate simple incandescents from halogen type alternatives, previous data has shown the ongoing popularity of the simpler cheaper incandescents, and NEMA imply the same in their commentary here (the sales rise from 2012 regulations on simple incandescents, the expected increased future sales of halogen type replacements).

Another reply is that LEDs offer an alternative choice - certainly, but again,
with light quality differences in their spiky emission spectra, and with even more light output problems than CFLs to achieve bright (over 60W) light equivalent omnidirectional lighting, and at reasonable cost.


The simple truth is that all lighting has advantages for different uses:
and markets, whether you like them or not, always send a message.
In this case the message is clear - people still like to buy simple incandescent light bulbs.
"Great savings" from banning them is therefore to ban what people would have bought if they could, and as referenced on the Deception page, the overall all-things-considered savings whether of energy or emissions or money, are marginal and irrelevant.
Banning chauffeur driven political limousines might bring "great savings", but that again does not mean that those affected would necessarily be happy with such savings!
 

Always Look on the Bright Side

 






Imagine calling a fluorescent bulb Tru Dim ;-)
(it's dimmable, apparently, and full of fun components)



Following on from the post about renowned lighting designer Howard Brandston's Mondo article, he has also updated his website commentary, with a letter to Consumer Reports (that they did not publish)

Excerpts, my highlights:

The design of lighting is the creation of a system to light a space.
When you take the total energy used to light many typical spaces, including the lighting controls, the total connected load and energy consumed when using incandescent light sources the result is, in many cases, equal to or more efficient than the new sources you are touting.

Then you make a serious technical error when you state that lumens measures brightness.
Lumens are a measure of radiant energy in the visible spectrum – not brightness.
More lumens do not mean more brightness or visibility – nor that you will prefer the light illuminating the scene or object it is falling upon. What is critical in this case is the Spectral Power Distribution of the light source.
In this case, when evaluated by most viewers, the incandescent light bulb wins – most of the time. That does not mean there are not several applications where alternative light sources perform perfectly well and are preferred. But to ban the incandescent light bulb is a serious detriment to the design of good lighting for many applications. People will sort that out
by themselves without the help of legislation....

Sincerely,
Howard M. Brandston, FIES, Hon. FCIBSE & SLL, FIALD, LC.

Comment

As covered previously here, Lumens are replacing Watts as the new standard for buying light bulbs by (supposedly) brightness...

CFLs and LEDs have spiky emission spectra, so strong brightness in single pure light colors might confuse the measurements, compares to the smoother, broader, light color emissions as with incandescents.

There are a lot of reasons why CFLs and LEDs seem dimmer than their lab rated values...
more on CFL brightness here (http://ceolas.net/#li15rbx),
and some additional notes on LED brightness (http://ceolas.net/#li15ledax).
 

Howard Brandston's Mondo Article

 
A while back I had a resource news update, looking at the latest from the sites in the resource link list - it seems better just to highlight different ones, when I notice them.

I mentioned that Howard Brandston had an upcoming article in Mondo magazine.
This is now published:

MERCURY? Thermometers NO! Light bulbs YES!
A plea to the lighting design community from Howard Brandston.


On December 16th 2011, just days before a national ban on the incandescent was to take effect, the United States congress postponed the onset of a law that threatens to alter the very contours of our lives. Starting with a phase-out of the 100-watt bulb in 2012, the Energy Independence and Security Act, signed by George W. Bush in 2007, finishes off the 40-watt lamp by 2014. How do the legislators behind the Act intend to replace Thomas Edison’s time-tested invention? With the squiggly compact fluorescent, which has been touted as a panacea for an ailing planet, even as questions about its energy efficiency and environmental viability abound. The outcry in the U.S. against this proposed ban, however, has been vociferous—loud enough, it seems, to have put at least a momentary halt to legislation that is not dissimilar to bans that are in the process of being enacted all over the world.

In the years leading up to the planned implementation of the Act, American lighting manufacturing giants raced to replace the incandescent light bulb with the compact fluorescent to the tune of 400 million lamps sold each year, sacrificing quality and, ironically, the environment in exchange for what was widely heralded as affordability and energy efficiency—CFLs are said to use up to 75 percent less energy than conventional tungsten bulbs (the figures vary). Meanwhile, compact fluorescents have been flooding landfills around the world, frequently breaking along the way, releasing about 5 milligrams of mercury into the soil, water, and air with every shattered bulb.

A naturally occurring heavy metal, mercury is a potent neurotoxin that causes damage to the central nervous system, the endocrine system, the kidneys and other organs. Mercury poisoning can be fatal; exposure to mercury is especially dangerous for fetuses and children. Yet despite the imminent phase out of the incandescent bulb, the lion’s share of municipalities in the United States have failed to implement safe, accessible recycling solutions for the toxic compact fluorescent. Five years after the signing of the Act, cities and towns with curbside recycling services still do not have the facilities to deal with such bulbs, which must be taken to hazardous waste centers, many of which are open to the public a total of one day a month.

And what happens when one of these fragile glass corkscrews breaks within the safety of the home? The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommends evacuation of the site for the first 15 minutes after the breakage in order to avoid exposure to harmful mercury vapors. After an elaborate initial cleanup (instructions available on the internet are confounding in their contradictions), the room should be aired out, the EPA advises, with all HVAC systems turned off, for several hours. Theories as to the health risks posed by any remaining traces of mercury vary wildly depending on who is doing the talking. Consumers can, for the moment, breathe a huge sigh of relief. They have not yet lost the freedom to decide for themselves what kind of bulbs they are willing to risk bringing into their homes.

Now, at the 11th hour, Congress has postponed the bill—which was planned to go into effect on January 1—until September 2012, giving those in support of the incandescent nine more months to harness the momentum necessary to make their voices heard. Vigilance is key. This small victory must not be seen as a mere momentary roadblock to the boondoggle that has been looming over the U.S. lighting industry and how it is that we illuminate the commercial workplace, as well as the sanctity of our homes, for the past five years. Constituents around the world need to make their opposition to the ban known, in the face of the considerable lobbying power of lamp manufacturers, who, no doubt, will continue to put pressure on Congress, fervently politicking for their interests to be served.

The devastating paradox of the supposedly green solution to the global energy crisis proffered by the compact fluorescent is that the mercury contained within these bulbs is poised to invade our homes even as we are promised a reduction in mercury-laced carbon emissions—a reduction that is negligible at best. It is an energy saving that can easily be accomplished by legislation on any number of measures, including wind and solar power and alternative fuels, higher building standards, and HVAC and water heating systems, to name a few.

And what about other lighting alternatives? High-performance energy-efficient incandescents that meet proposed energy efficiency guidelines are in the works. Halogen lamps are everywhere. But unfortunately, the high-performance bulbs currently available or in the pipeline are no competition for the conventional tungsten lamp when it comes to cost. Which means that if a ban on the incandescent does go into effect, the only affordable option for the vast majority of homes will be the noxious compact fluorescent.

Action must be taken to ensure that the repeal is not simply a postponement. It is imperative that we succeed in averting the impending environmental crisis we are so very close to legislating into being. For if just one gram of mercury will pollute a 2-acre pond, imagine the havoc millions of compact fluorescents tossed into our garbage dumps threatens to wreak on the world at large, let alone the sanitation workers who come in constant direct contact with high volumes of these troublesome bulbs. Allowing so much mercury to invade our homes and workplaces, not to mention our already endangered forests and plains, our rivers and oceans, would be not just foolhardy but downright destructive.

And mercury is not the only problem when it comes to the compact fluorescent. Myriad questions remain regarding the negative impact of CFLs on our health and well-being. The flicker rate of the bulb has improved over time, but the jury is still out on CFLs as a trigger for migraines and, in some cases, epileptic seizures. The long-term effects of electro-magnetic fields and the gaps in the colour spectrum peculiar to CFLs have not yet been adequately studied. In addition, the ultra-violet radiation emitted by CFLs poses dangers to those with light-sensitive diseases such as lupus.

And the list of downsides continues: many existing light fixtures are incompatible with CFLs and will need to be replaced. The fact that the bulbs require a different kind of dimmer than those installed in most homes poses yet another challenge. CFLs boast a longevity equal to 3 to 25 (or 8 to 15, again, the figures vary) times that of the incandescent; but these claims are substantially undercut by the rapid reduction in lifespan that occurs when the lights are switched on and off with any sort of frequency. And then there is the CFL delay: when a compact fluorescent is switched on, it does not light up immediately, but takes up to three minutes to reach full intensity. Component parts fail frequently, due to compromises in quality in exchange for affordability. CFLs are manufactured in China, where there are little or no environmental controls, and safety in the workplace is all but nonexistent. Energy savings produced by the bulbs themselves are offset by the distance they must be shipped and the energy expended to manufacture their plastic packaging, which of course, is environmentally unsound. And despite the fact that the quality of light given off by CFLs has improved in recent years, it remains spectrally deficient, and vastly diminished in comparison with that of the incandescent. Not to mention the negative impact that the incandescent ban would have on the work of lighting designers and industry professionals in an era that is presently rife with restrictions.

But the implications of the elimination of the affordable incandescent go far beyond the blatant health risks posed by the compact fluorescent and its roll call of hindrances listed above. What’s most ominous about the incandescent ban proposed by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is not simply its enforced influx of the compact fluorescent into our homes and workplaces, but the fact that if it does indeed take effect, we will have lost our freedom to choose how we light our lives.

Human beings evolved with and in response to light—sunlight, moonlight, the incandescence of fire. Our physical mechanism, the neuroscience that makes us who we are, is exquisitely attuned to light’s qualities and rhythms. The light that envelops us steers our very existence. To impose limitations on how we choose to illuminate our world carries profound biological implications.

How did we get here? How is it that environmental institutions from the EPA to the Energy Federation to Greenpeace continue to advocate the use of the compact fluorescent despite the overwhelming evidence?
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy.”
—Ernest Benn, British publisher, born in 1875

Our recent predicament is a testament to the hefty lobbying power of a handful of manufacturing giants on Capitol Hill and a barrage of mostly meaningless statistical data. For when one takes a closer look at the bee’s nest of information spun in favour of the ban, one discovers that the “more than 330 million metric tons [of greenhouse gas emissions saved] over the next 30 years” posed in defence of the incandescent ban amounts to .013 percent of energy use over the next three decades. This is a figure that could easily be offset by any one of a number of measures. But the industries behind these measures wield a lobbying muscle that is at least as formidable as that of the lamp manufacturers, if not more so. The community of lighting professionals is only a few thousand strong. The incandescent, then, is an easy target—singled out in the scramble to make our lives more energy efficient, even when the statistics don’t support the argument.

It’s not too late to set the story straight. We have seen that speaking out can make a difference. We have been given a tremendous opportunity, thanks to the postponement of the ban, to spread the word. Now is the time to organise our resources and step up the good fight. We, as a community of lighting professionals, have a voice that can make itself heard: a clear, unified statement issued on behalf of the lighting community will have far-reaching implications. We must do everything we can to invite the general public to get involved, to urge consumers to contact their legislators and make their feelings known regarding this onerous, ill-thought bill—and others like it all over the world. Our freedom to choose the nature and quality of how we illuminate our lives lies in the balance.

Howard Brandston
www.concerninglight.com LightPain@aol.com

Howard Brandston
biography, commentary, business
As seen, a well known lighting designer with numerous projects, also a guest lecturer, visiting professor, and as noted the Congress choice of expert opinion on lighting issues.


Comment

Listen to what the renowned lighting designer says!

The most common political reply, as also happened to him in the Senate Hearings,
is the well-worn "But we are not banning incandescents... energy efficient types like halogens are still allowed".
Howard does point out the cost difference, there are also some light quality and other differences, and significantly they will be "phased out" too on both US and EU legislation specifications (indeed a ban on low-voltage halogens is in the works in the EU too, or should I say "standards that do not allow them to be made" 8-))

The today revised page The Deception behind Banning Light Bulbs,
a copy which follows underneath, complements the above:
I steer away from specific CFL-mercury criticism in that rundown, as that line of argument (however justified) detracts from the purpose there, to highlight how the ban in itself is wrong.

CFLs, like incandescents and other bulbs have their advantages too.
Provided the usage safety conditions are adhered too, there is no need to ban them either(!).

Energy efficiency regulations make no sense for any reason, including to save energy or emissions.
Coal plants were always the main target.
Yet the irony is that - even with supposed energy usage -
the same coal gets burned regardless of whether your light bulb is on or off! (more)

It's a funny world.  

Resource News Update

 

  #   #   #   #   #   #

Update Tuesday January 10:

(Last update... will return with a new fill of resource news in a week or two, as appropriate!)


Peter Stenzel has noted (translation) the Aero marketing of 20 000 hr life incandescent bulbs
As he says (somewhat adjusted and corrected from the Google translation)

According to their website, their 20 000 hours bulbs have the following advantages:
* Extra-durable filament
* Additional protection against vibrations
* Extra-strength to absorb surges

1 pack of 6 bulbs costs only $ 11.99.

Aero-Tech Light Bulb Co. was founded in 1987 by Ray M. Schlosser as a company producing special lighting. They have over the years developed a complete line of 20,000 hours bulb in many shapes and sizes, from 11-200 watts, and the company is the only manufacturer of 20,000 hours bulb that is still left in America.

More from Halogenica

LED drawbacks
"summary about solid state lighting a.k.a. LED and what has transpired over the last couple of years"
Observations on different LED types, and lifespan and safety issues


U.S. Incandescent ban – will it save the planet (and my economy)?
A good updated rundown from a household savings perspective.

One might add, when looking at this from the viewpoint of whether regulations are justified or not, that society regulations are, or should be, about society savings - not individual savings
(unless "interference in people's lives" is a primary government objective!).

On that basis the percentage electricity and energy savings are even smaller, since household use is only a relatively small part of grid electricity use.
(and see from the blog post that I could decrease the overall 1-2% grid electricity savings I keep referring to!)



Update Monday January 9:

Also good to see Halogenica back in action, as always with an insightful blog post.
The latest, yesterday, covers a Q & A about the US incandescent ban, on to what extent it is a ban, the lamps affected, about halogen replacements and where to get them, and background issues to the ban.


Excerpts, adding to information previously posted here
(the original text also includes a lot of useful links regarding the below text)

If you want incandescent you can still buy 72 watt tungsten halogen Energy Savers and get as much light as from a 100 watt lamp (see my Halogen Energy Savers review). If you can find them. Amazon sells them, Home Depot only have reflector lamps, Lowe’s have more flodlight reflector models, but they can be hard to find in regular stores (ask for them)....
....just a few days ago IKEA proudly announced that they will not sell any incandescent lamps (spinning more-$$$-for-IKEA-from-new-$14-LEDs to sound like “IKEA-saving-the-planet”). More retailers may follow, regardless of how the dispute ends.

Also, regarding the "Blame Bush" jibe at Republicans... the ban was a bi-partisan job
back in 2007:

The original light bulb legislation was written by Fred Upton (R-MI) and Jane Harmon (D-CA) says CNS News.

“In 2007, Harman and Upton introduced bipartisan, bicameral legislation–which became law as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act–that bans the famously inefficient 100-watt incandescent light bulb by 2012, phases out remaining inefficient light bulbs by 2014, and requires that light bulbs be at least three times as efficient as today’s 100-watt incandescent bulb by 2020,” explained a 2009 press release put out by the two House members.

The bill was passed under the Republican Bush administration and signed by president G.W. Bush in 2007. President Obama and the Democratic party have embraced it. However, Upton later changed his mind, as did many other Republicans (and many didn’t think it was a good idea in the first place).

As a comment, and as I also tend to leave out, less common 75 Watt bulbs are also banned from Jan 1 2012 in the Act (in fact, any regular incandescent over 72W, Energy Dept info).

//
Post update correction: Halogenica was right.
The absurdity, that 75 W "dim" bulbs are allowed but 75 W "bright" ones are banned!
This is because the regulations are based on lumen (brightness) rating, rather than energy usage.
The above Dept of Energy link seems to indicate a 72 W maximum, but several other official documents clarify the legality of regular 75 W bulbs, until 1 Jan 2013.
See updated comment to USA regulation on this http://ceolas.net/#li01inx
//


Also, as Halogenica says the above is only about the first phase of the ban, the Halogen replacements will effectively come to be banned too, in the less well known second phase after 2014 that also forms part of the Act, on the 45 lumen per Watt end regulation (they typically only reach 22-25 lumen per Watt), as covered before in this blog.


  #   #   #   #   #   #




I am going to do a weekly or so look at what others are doing, particularly the linked resources...see how it goes.
(May update somewhat, ahead of the next relevant post)


Howard Brandston will soon have an article on the lack of logic in targeting mercury thermometers, yet not doing anything about CFL mercury (as I understand).
In a coming Mondo magazine article (probably either this or this link)

Kevan's blog is as seen just updated, looking at Lighting Regulatory Landscape for 2012, with a European perspective (extract, my highlight)

2012 will also see the beginning of [European Union] consultation on the first revision of the Ecodesign regulations for domestic lamps part 1, aka the Incandescent Lamp Ban.

It is vital that the Lighting Design Community engage with this process and do not get left out like we did at the beginning of the first round of this legislation.
From what we have seen and learned it is now vital that we secure the future of the Halogen energy saver lamp.

At present we are beginning to see the problems I and others have forecast with the disposal of CFLs. We are also seeing increasing numbers of people with non specific photosensitive disorders coming forward. These people can not live with CFLs or LEDs and so far there is insufficient research to understand what this apparently broad range of disorders are caused by though all seem to be able to live with incandescent light.

...good point about saving halogens, also on a practical note as to what is achievable.

Trishah at Light Bulb Choice covering the latest delays in Canada as well as how the Republican amendment affects, or does not affect, the 2012 situation.

The Montana permaculture people has an extensive 2 hour podcast on CFL issues
- interesting, coming from avowed environmentalists...

Send Your Light Bulbs To Washington report on a humorous take on CFLs, with a mock CFL sales campaign, a spoof that nevertheless also shows up several problems with CFLs that don't often get highlighted.

Peter Stenzel's Gluehbirne site, news section (translated: from German, here) also covers the Canadian ban delay, and has LED test report information.

 

Light Bulb Testimonial

 
 

 

Having done one review of a book that welcomes the demise of Edison's simple bulb, a blog like this might balance it with something that does not...
also in these holiday times when a good read might be welcome!

Published last summer 2011,
the latest December Congress developments may have halted things at "Death Row" level, but of course the ban has not gone away...

To begin with,
it should be clear that this cheap e-book, only around US $2 dollars (say on Amazon) is really about 2 lengthy essays or articles, than a book as such.
But for the price of a Cappucino, you certainly get good value, by 2 knowledgeable authors.


I can't better the overall review of the Broadside Book Publisher site:

I, Light Bulb: A Death Row Testimonial demonstrates how the American economy has gone from free markets to politically correct, government controlled crony capitalism in the half century since Leonard E. Read wrote the classic essay, “I, Pencil.”

Author Michael Patrick Leahy tells the story of the ban on the current generation of incandescents from the perspective of a condemned 100 watt light bulb. In the voice of the light bulb, Leahy points out the need for political activism to reverse this ban, arguing that it not only prevents an innocent incandescent light bulb from continuing a useful economic life, it also deprives every American of their own economic liberty and freedom of choice.


Readers who buy I, Lightbulb will also receive the bonus companion e-book The Disastrous Lightbulb Ban by Howard Brandston, at no additional cost.

Brandston, the internationally recognized expert on lighting most well known for lighting the Statue of Liberty, explains why the federal government’s ban on the current generation of incandescent light bulbs is such a bad idea.
He explains how in 2007 a Democrat controlled Congress, the lamp manufacturers, the Department of Energy, and George W. Bush combined to force us to replace inexpensive and safe incandescent light bulbs with expensive, unsafe Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs that contain mercury. In this companion book to I, Light Bulb, Brandston concludes by encouraging citizen political activism to repeal this ridiculous ban.

The August 2011 Weekly Standard article by editor Joseph Bottum,
puts the issues raised in a wider perspective. Extracts:


It's Green and Blue, But Not Bright

The two essays in a new pamphlet in the "Voices of the Tea Party" series from Broadside Books — I, Light Bulb: A Death Row Testimonial by the editor Michael Patrick Leahy and The Disastrous Light Bulb Ban by Howard M. Brandston — both identify the primary cause as an activist and out-of-control government, manipulated by crony-capitalist corporations:
"If you want to find the ultimate roots of the movement... it all began when Herbert Hoover was named the Secretary of Commerce under Warren Harding, when he set about organizing manufacturers into cooperative industry organizations."

In this telling,
the otherwise forgotten 1924 "Phoebus Cartel" of light-bulb manufacturers looms large, but the story only really gets rolling with the oil crisis of the 1970s, when Congress decided energy policy lay squarely within its remit and began to pass laws mandating all kinds of usage standards for cars and factories.

In those days, of course, the announced purpose was American "energy independence" rather than our currently declared goal of reducing greenhouse gases.
But the real motives, say the Tea Party authors, were always the same: a mistrust of ordinary people and an insatiable hunger for increased government. All of which culminated when the 2007 Democrat-dominated Congress (led by Nancy Pelosi, Nanny of the House) set out to do something, anything, that expanded government power, changed the nation's lifestyle, and rewarded the large manufacturers such as General Electric that had supported the Democrats' election. An inattentive or uninterested President Bush signed the bill, and here we are.

But if it hadn't been incandescent bulbs, it would have been something else.
The truisms of the nannies, the trite expressions of public morality spraying from the religious weight of environmentalism, will not be denied. One way or another, they force themselves out into the public air.

Among Republicans, Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is under some attack for having sponsored the amendment that kept the light-bulb ban alive in the 2007 energy bill. George W. Bush is tarred with the same indictment for having failed to veto the bizarre legislation. But, really, those poor men were just trying to do the right thing. They accepted the faux-science of CFLs and the pseudo-economics because they wanted to believe. They wanted to share in the great public morality of environmentalism, and everyone seemed to be telling them that light bulbs were the way to do it.


In the event, light bulbs weren't the way to do it,
but that's really beside the point.

You want to know where the light-bulb ban began?
It wasn't Nancy Pelosi, and it wasn't Herbert Hoover, and it wasn't even the shadowy Phoebus Cartel, though all who do evil love the darkness.
The light-bulb ban was carried forward by the placards about towels in motel rooms. It was nursed at the local coffee shop, where we are lectured in high moral language about how only sustainable coffee beans — gathered, if the illustrations are accurate, on the misty slopes of Ytaiao Mountain by Rima the jungle girl — can redeem us. Saving the planet, one Starbucks at a time.

The demand for CFLs was inculcated at "Earth Day" plays,
in which grade-school children got to act out the roles of bunnies and butterflies who've come to warn us that we must be nice to the Earth
(As James Lileks once noted, those school plays typically end with "a hymn to nature that makes the Romantic poets look like strip-mining company CEOs.")
The desire to eradicate incandescent bulbs grew up with myths of the Cuyahoga River catching fire and the smog of Los Angeles rolling through the Hollywood Hills like malevolent mud.

The truth or falsity of such things is a trifle, a quibble, a bagatelle.
What matters is that they form our national mythology and our cultural worldview. They form our public religion — the one moral vocabulary that can be spoken in this country anywhere and anytime.

Of course, the result is the kind of general feeling that something must be done about it all, and if that something is rather pointless — the peculiar rush to legislate 1.6-gallon toilets is a good example — nonetheless we have shown a righteous will by trying. We have the guilt-release of a noble attempt. We have the warm feeling of being on the side of good.
We have asserted our standing as children of light, even if rather ineffectual ones. We have followed the sayings of nanny.

I also refer to some interesting passages of the e-book on the Ceolas.net site
in relation to the famous (infamous) Phoebus cartel.

To quote, from Michael Patrick Leahy's I, Lightbulb:

During World War I, the War Industries Board was a government-authorized, industry-staffed effort engaged in industrial planning. General Electric executives such as Gerard Swope participated:
By so doing, and by watching Hoover in action in the sister agency, the Food Administration, they got the idea that by participating in such government authorized planning efforts, they could keep out competitors, control the market, and maximize their profits.

When Swope was named president of General Electric in 1922, he immediately set about applying those principles to the electrical lighting market.
Swope knew that the tungsten patent [vital to well-working light bulbs] would expire in 1927.
How was he going to maintain his monopoly?


The Phoebus Cartel
In 1924, General Electric, along with several major European corporations,
and with the implicit blessing of Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, formed a cartel - a cooperative group of competing firms who agreed to fix prices, share technology, establish production standards, and use common marketing practices.

By sharing incandescent light bulb patents that kept competitors out, and by agreeing on exclusive geographic spheres of influence, the member companies could maintain high market shares and high profits.
Called "The Phoebus Cartel" after the Swiss company Phoebus, they set out to keep track of all their activities around the world.

Under the agreement,
General Electric got the United States,
Associated Electrical Industries got the United Kingdom,
Osram got Germany,
Philips got Holland,
and Tungsram got Eastern Europe.
The European companies got to share the British overseas territories, and they all could compete in the rest of the world. General Electric was guaranteed that none of the other major manufacturers of incandescent light bulbs would enter the American market.
When the agreement began, General Electric had a 90 percent market share.
When it ended fifteen years later, General Electric still had a 90 percent market share.

Only a few dozen small, scrappy Japanese manufacturing companies dared to enter the American market and take on General Electric:
They ignored General Electric and related Phoebus Cartel patents, copied what they could, and shipped their less expensive, shorter-lasting incandescent bulbs into the United States. When they began to show some increase in sales, General Electric got friends in Congress to slap a tariff on imported incandescent bulbs, and the price advantage disappeared. Japanese inroads were stopped.

When the cartel was first organized, the life span of the average bulb was 1,000 hours. Fifteen years later, when the cartel came to an end due to World War II, it remained the same.
This is not the kind of progress you would expect if the full engineering and research capabilities of General Electric had been tasked with expanding the life span. Word in our family has always been that this was intentional:
Every 1,000 hours, you had to buy a new incandescent light bulb. Why expand the life span to 2,000 hours? You would just cut your sales in half...

Howard Brandston's contribution The Disastrous Light Bulb Ban is again illuminating, if such words may be used, especially in my view his direct personal involvement in light bulb legislation, having been consulted not only in the proposals leading to the 2007 legislation but also more recently in the Senate hearing this year that looked into reasons or not to proceed with the ban ("phase out").

He clarifies how light bulb manufacturers actively sought the ban
(slightly edited and highlighted extracts):

The NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturers Association) Lamp Subcommittee was composed of General Electric, Osram Sylvania, and Philips, the same industrial giants who formed the old Phoebus Cartel back in 1924 and was conducting its own research and internal hearings that culminated in a recommendation to ban the incandescent light bulb.
When I asked NEMA for help in fighting the incandescent light ban, I was politely told that they could not be involved in any research program like that...
In April 2007, ahead of Congress hearings, NEMA announced its support for the Government's energy efficient lighting policy.

He also runs through reasons why the ban is wrong,
as I reference to on the website, and is unnecessary to repeat here.




Footnotes:

Michael Patrick Leahy
biography, website, blog
As seen, an extensive background in business management and conservative politics.
Michael is currently the Series Editor for Broadside Books' "Voices of the Tea Party" series of e-books.
Also not idle on the light bulb front - helping to put out a rough service bulb that "beats the ban"!



Howard Brandston
biography, commentary, business
As seen well known lighting designer with numerous projects, also a guest lecturer, visiting professor, and as noted the Congress choice of expert opinion on lighting issues.

Has written a book Learning to See, A Matter of Light,
full description here...

As one reviewer puts it,
“This is a gem of a book. For the design beginner it sets the approach to discovery. For the lighting professional it gives insights that can inspire creativity. The teacher will find useful methods for involving students in lighting concepts. The interested person will gain a higher understanding of how light affects the quality of our lives.”