New Study on CFL UV Radiation

 
Updated July 26 with comparative spectra also for LED replacement bulbs

The team of Stony Brook researchers reviews the findings of their research. Pictured from left to right (standing) are Marcia Simon, Michael Hadjiargyrou, (sitting) Tatsiana Mironava and Miriam Rafailovich. The images displayed on the screen are of keratinocytes via confocal microscopy which show the results of human skin cells with and without exposure to CFL.

From: Stony Brook University News, July 18


As has widely been reported, a recent study highlights the problem of UV radiation from compact fluorescent bulbs, albeit only at close quarters.
It is therefore recommended that the squiggly tubes are enclosed in capsules for such use, as with the pear shaped CFLs that are available.


From the Daily Mail article 20 July   Edited extracts, highlights

Energy-saving light bulbs can fry your skin, study claims
Energy-saving light bulbs can fry your skin, a new study claims.
Researchers at Stony Brook University in New York State examined the impact of the compact fluorescent bulbs - or CFL bulbs - on human skin cells prompted by a similar study undertaken in Europe.
They discovered that healthy skin exposed to light from the CFLs experienced damage found with ultraviolet (UV) radiation.

'Consumers should be careful when using compact fluorescent light bulbs... our research shows that it is best to avoid using them at close distances and that they are safest when placed behind an additional glass cover' Stony Brook University Professor of Materials Science and Engineering Miriam Rafailovich said.

The scientists tested a number of CFL bulbs from across New York State to determine their UV emissions and the integrity of each bulb’s phosphor coatings.
Results revealed significant levels of UV, which appeared to originate from cracks in the phosphor coatings that were present in all CFL bulbs studied.

They also tested the impact on collagen-producing skin cells and the epidermal cell that generated keratin from the light.
Comparing skin cells exposed to the CFLs with those exposed to incandescent light bulbs, they discovered that only the CFLs damaged skin, the same trauma as sun burnt skin, they found. Incandescent light of the same intensity had no effect on healthy skin cells at all.

The study itself:

The Effects of UV Emission from Compact Fluorescent Light Exposure on
Human Dermal Fibroblasts and Keratinocytes
Tatsiana Mironava, Michael Hadjiargyrou, Marcia Simon, Miriam H. Rafailovich
Article first published online: 20 jul 2012

Abstract
Compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs can provide the same amount of lumens as incandescent light bulbs, using one quarter of the energy.
Recently, CFL exposure was found to exacerbate existing skin conditions; however, the effects of CFL exposure on healthy skin tissue have not been thoroughly investigated.

In this study, we studied the effects of exposure to CFL illumination on healthy human skin tissue cells (fibroblasts and keratinocytes).
Cells exposed to CFLs exhibited a decrease in the proliferation rate, a significant increase in the production of reactive oxygen species, and a decrease in their ability to contract collagen.
Measurements of UV emissions from these bulbs found significant levels of UVC and UVA (mercury [Hg]
emission lines), which appeared to originate from cracks in the phosphor coatings, present in all bulbs studied.

The response of the cells to the CFLs was consistent with damage from UV radiation, which was further enhanced when low dosages of TiO2 nanoparticles (NPs), normally used for UV absorption, were added prior to exposure.
No effect on cells, with or without TiO2 NPs, was observed when they were exposed to incandescent light of the same intensity.

Scotland based lighting designer Kevan Shaw of Savethebulb.org has a particular interest on the effects of CFLs on people with light sensitivity disorders, as he points out in the introduction to his post on this research, extracts:

Frying tonight?
As previously blogged I am assisting the Spectrum Alliance with their campaign to retain incandescent lamps for people with specific photosensitive disorders.
In the course of this I have learned a lot about skin problems caused by CFLs. It seems that such problems are not just confined to specifically photosensitive people. The Daily Mail ran an article on 20 July this year following up on recently published research in the USA. It seems that the light from CFLs has a significantly greater damaging effect on skin than incandescent lamps.

As previously experienced, CFLs do emit UV despite the claims of manufacturers.
Double envelope CFLs do reduce UV emissions considerably and should be used in any situation where lamps are at all close to people like task lighting, table lamps and bedside lights, particularly for the very young and very old whose skin tends to be more sensitive.

Kevan Shaw July 20 , 2012

Comment

Some comments elsewhere are taking this quite lightly, even welcoming a bit of sunburn and vitamin D formation.
However, an important point not mentioned is that UVC, one of the UV types emitted, is the most damaging UV source and happens to be blocked by the atmosphere ozone layer when coming from the sun.

An interesting runthrough of UV light can be seen on Digplanet.com, here.

The same source on Fluorescent lamp UV radiation

Fluorescent lamps

Fluorescent lamps produce UV radiation by ionising low-pressure mercury vapour. A phosphorescent coating on the inside of the tubes absorbs the UV and converts it to visible light.

The main mercury emission wavelength is in the UVC range. Unshielded exposure of the skin or eyes to mercury arc lamps that do not have a conversion phosphor is quite dangerous.

The light from a mercury lamp is predominantly at discrete wavelengths. Other practical UV sources with more continuous emission spectra include xenon arc lamps (commonly used as sunlight simulators), deuterium arc lamps, mercury-xenon arc lamps, metal-halide arc lamps, and tungsten-halogen incandescent lamps.

Incandescents have a red shift and relatively low UV output

unknown source

CFL lamp spectrum

Source Bealecorner.org

A comparison between light sources
(a CFL is of course a type of mercury vapor lamp)

Source Olympusmicro.com

The sourced Olympusmicro.com site for the last diagram has a good account of lamp technologies and spectra.


Notice how the today's much-hyped LED replacement bulbs ("white LEDs") also have light quality issues, irregular spectrum with blue peaking.. (from http://www.luminousdiy.com/):





As do the alternative modular Red Green Blue LED bulbs, as seen from the excellent lighting comparative study diagrams on Gluehbirne.ist.org/






As for the issue at hand here,
there is more coverage of UV radiation and other health concerns, with research references and information on related skin and other disorders, on http://ceolas.net/#li18rx

Note that the double envelope CFL recommendation dates back several years from other studies...


BBC article extract, 9 October 2008:

UV light fear over 'green' bulbs
Being too close to energy-saving light bulbs could cause skin reddening because of ultraviolet light emissions, health experts have warned.
The Health Protection Agency (HPA) cautions against being closer than 30cm (1ft) to some compact fluorescent (cfl) bulbs for long.

As a result of testing which revealed the potentially high levels of UV light, the HPA has issued guidelines against people using unencapsulated light bulbs - where the light coil is visible - closer than 30cms to the body for more than one hour a day.

Professor Harry Moseley, Consultant Clinical Scientist at the University of Dundee, said: "We are concerned about risks to patients who have severe light-sensitive skin disorders.
"The small levels of ultra-violet emitted by some low energy light bulbs could be harmful to these patients. I recommend use of lights with a protective shield to absorb the UV."
Experts stress that healthy people are at no risk providing the HPAs advice (above) is followed.

Also a similar EU Commission study 2008, albeit a typically poorly written EU report, seemingly drawing on other studies, and full of conclusions without presenting underlying data evidence (surprise, not).

In December 2009 The Canadian Federal Government Health Department finished a review of CFLs, again mainly relating to UV radiation, but other electromagnetic radiation was also studied.
The report mirrored the UK HPA findings:
"It is recommended that single envelope CFLs [classic tubular type lights] not be used at distances less than 30 cm to avoid any long-term health effects in the general population"


Note a certain irony here...
Double envelope CFLs protecting from UV light also means reducing their ordinary light output still more
There is other irony about CFLs already, eg leave them on, waste energy, switch them on-off, shorten their life...

Basically, bulbs are the wrong format for fluorescent lighting technology, best in long tube form, just like LEDs have natural lighting advantages in sheet form.
The CFL and LED natural advantages are compromised in offering politically pushed incandescent-copying lighting.

CFLs "All Fail" Study

 

As mentioned in the last post here, the Savethebulb.org blog has interesting recent research information, with the seemingly low savings from banning simple incandescents, as a UK Dept of Environment (DEFRA) study seems to confirm.
The study even suggested that households with CFLs use more electricity, albeit that it also highlights the need for further study.
Overall, much else is seen as relevant in lowering household energy use, apart from switching light bulbs.


Worthy of note is the other research mentioned on Savethebulb,
into the quality of CFLs on the UK market (and likely applicable in USA and elsewhere too).
This was also covered on the companion blog Send Your Light Bulbs to Washington (a blog being redeveloped via sylbtw.org, with better design options).


Quoting from the original SaveTheBulb blog post, added highlighting:

Much has been said about the quality, or lack thereof, of Compact Fluorescent Energy Saving lamps.
The EcoDesign [EU standard setting office] regulations made some effort to include quality criteria to answer criticisms by user groups. Each European country is supposed to undertake necessary market surveillance to ensure that the products placed on the market meet these quality criteria.
In the UK a new QUANGO , the National Measurement Office, (NMO) was set up to deal with this across all of the EcoDesign regulations. There was some discussion before it was set up as to what it would be doing in respect of the lighting regulations. So far it has undertaken one study on domestic lighting and the results were published here.

It was always acknowledged that there would not be sufficient funding to realistically tackle the vast number of lamps imported and sold each year, however this report really does show that quality standards are not being met and that NMO are taking a softly softly approach with suppliers rather than a strict an punitive approach. During the MTP consultation we were told that these studies on lamps would be annual however I had a conversation with a spokesman for NMO who absolutely refused to say if or when another study on domestic lamps would be taking place.

As things stand and from the meager evidence available I would say that, certainly as far as domestic lighting is concerned EcoDesign regulations are neither delivering the promised energy savings nor the guarantee of reasonable quality of lamps to the domestic market in the EU.

Kevan Shaw July 4, 2012

Looking then at the study by the National Measurement Office as mentioned

All bulb models tested were CFLs, 20 each, of 15 models...

"At the start of the project, fifteen models of lamp were identified according to risk, purchased in a batch of twenty and secured into evidence by the NMO. Once photographed and given individual codes the
lamps were transported to the Lighting Association for accredited testing.

The results of the tests showed excessive failures and high levels of risk within the domestic lighting industry. All fifteen of the lamps showed some area of failure, ranging from information displayed incorrectly on the free access website to an 85% failure on a switching cycle test."

[images here are not from the test report, but base burn is one failure cause]

Comment

While the National Measurement Office research, in its conclusions, therefore notes...

The project had successes.... with thousands
of lamps that did not meet current requirements being withdrawn from the marketplace

It does however overall play down the failures...

Further investigation into the areas of potential high risk highlighted by the testing process showed that most of the problems were minor with simple corrections and any other issues were addressed by working with industry towards a suitable and proportionate conclusion. None of the ‘failures’ originally detected were serious enough to justify being progressed to a legal outcome, and as demonstrated in Annex One the businesses within the lighting industry were willing to work with the NMO to ensure their lamps met with the requirements.

The "friendly face" National Measurement Office then becomes somewhat less friendly...

With many stages to the regulations for domestic lighting being implemented over the coming years, clearly there needs to be close market surveillance of the area. The results and signs from this project indicate that industry is managing changes, but that the NMO needs to closely monitor businesses choosing to stockpile their lamps. Whilst this may not be legislatively incorrect, it does not guarantee a fair market and negates the intentions of the Regulation. If stockpiling can be avoided, the NMO can continue its position providing a supporting role to businesses to ensure compliance across the market....

Now, on the one hand, lighting sales businesses should indeed not be stockpiling unsafe or "inferior" fluorescent lighting that does not meet stated specifications.
On the other hand, since new standards are also related to energy usage, it reflects
businesses also being prevented from selling such lighting, that they believe there is a demand for.

While this blog focuses on incandescent ban, there are plenty of other energy usage based bans on other lighting, notably on fluorescent T12 tube lighting, a popular thicker tube type not meeting new standards...but as always with certain advantages, or they would not be popular, and "need" banning.

The NMO report notwithstanding,
there is a certain worrying aspect to "quality" being judged by Government inspectors, rather than by Consumers on free markets that reward quality by increased voluntary purchases...
 

Politics, Science, and the Effect of Bans

 
Updated July 10, July 11

image  DesignLessBetter

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

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

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

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


We have now received the answer:

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

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


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

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

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

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




Page 423, Conclusion

Conclusions and Recommendations

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

Comment

Good Savethebulb point about follow-up after the ban.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

Getting a Blast out of Incandescents

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

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

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

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

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

The Bulb blasters site modestly expands...

BLAST YOUR WAY TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY


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

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



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

The company behind it is therefore Xcel Energy...

they profile themselves as follows...

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

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



Comment

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Update on Rik Gheysens CFL study

 
Update on the Update, June 7.... see Kevan comments below




As covered on Send Your Light Bulbs to Washington, following up on the previously mentioned mercury in fluorescent bulbs study

Relating to the post May 17 Research Report: Mercury in Fluorescent Lighting, the author has let us know some recent news on his website
(slight editing of the translation used):

May 2012


Website Test-Aankoop, May 24 2012:
CFLs (in the lab and in the waste collect centers): not always energy saving or environmentally friendly

In the June issue of the periodical "Test-Aankoop/Test-Achats", 13 double shell compact fluorescent lamps with a brightness between 500 and 700 lumen and with an E-27 fitting were investigated.

Some conclusions are:

• A certain model should, according to the packaging, have a lifetime of 8000 hours (= 8 years).
Four of the five test samples were already broken down before they burned 5000 hours.
The only still burning lamp reached at that moment only 70% of its brightness.

• A sample of another model failed already after burning 1800 hours.
" The samples which reached 5000 hours, had lost at that moment more 35% to even 80% of their brightness. Moreover, this lamp could hardly be switched on and off 5000 times."
This lamp can actually no longer be named a 'low-energy light bulb'.

The Belgian newspaper "De Morgen", May 25, 2012:
"CFLs are not always environmentally friendly"

In the June issue of the periodical "Test-Aankoop/Test-Achats", 13 [double shell] CFLs were investigated.

The results are:

• No lamp reached half the full intensity of light within 30 seconds.
"These teething troubles can no longer be justified ", said spokesman Ivo Mechels.

• The lifetime of the lamps does not appear to correspond to the promised lifetime on the packaging. "Six of the thirteen species scored very poorly", said Mechels.

• The collection of broken bulbs is not always as it should.
"They usually end up in an ordinary plastic bin. In places lay broken lamps. That mercury is released in this way, is hardly realized."

Another Belgian newspaper "De Standaard", May 25, 2012, writes: "The CFL is almost dead"

" CFLs are less efficient and ecological than their manufacturers try to make you believe.
And they seem to have lost faith in them themselves."
Ivo Mechels of Test-Aankoop/Test-Achats:
"CFLs are more sparing and last longer than conventional incandescent bulbs.
But they still have teething problems that (no longer) should be allowed.
This is no new technology anymore, so manufacturers can no longer hide (behind that idea)."

According to Stefaan Forment, researcher of the Laboratory of Lighting Technology of Ghent's Catholic College St Lieven, manufacturers seem to believe much more in LED lamps...

Update
Kevan at Savethebulb.org adds, taken from a June 6 post:

CFL fail again!
The Belgian consumer organisation Test-Aankoop/Test-Achats published their report on CFLi [Google translated version] on May 24th. This organisation buy products from retail sources and have undertaken long term tests with rather disappointing but not unexpected results. This is exactly what individual governments in the EU are supposed to be doing to ensure that the products on the market meet the requirements of the Eco Design legislation however seem to be failing at.

The major problem identified was the time to full light output. Of the lamps tested none achieved 20% of full output within 10 second and none achieved 50% of full output within 30 seconds, the test sample included one lamp claiming to be “Quick Start” however its performance was no better than the others.

Life testing proved equally disappointing, one model of lamp with a claimed 8,000 hour life. 4 out of 5 tested lamps failed within 5,000 hours the remaining lamps only producing 70% of its claimed light output at that time. One example of another type tested failed after 1,800 hours others in that batch that were still operating at 5,000 hours only produced between 20% and 65% of initial light output.

Start up speed, life and light output at end of life are included in the requirements of the Ecodesign legislation. We have to ask why are these not being enforced with the same stringency as the ban on sale of incandescent lamps? The lamp industry is clearly losing interest in CFLi with a major push towards LED based lamp replacements that seem likely to deliver much higher profits than CFLi or incandescent judging by the current excessive retail prices for them.

Test-Aankoop/Test-Achats also tested the recycling process by taking dead CFLi lamps to various container recycling sites. In the 34 recycling sites in Belgium that accept hazardous waste they found that the lamps were deposited in general hazardous waste with the staff at the centre left with the problem of separating lamps for processing by Recupel, the company responsible for lamps an Waste electrical and electronic goods. They also found that many fluorescent lamps were being broken and therefore discharging mercury vapour at the container sites with no real precautions being taken to protect workers or visitors to the sites. They reported their findings to Recupel and the Ministry responsible.

Good points by Kevan.
The profit motive for banning simple cheap patent expired bulbs should not be forgotten, and LEDs, as mentioned below, may be even "better" in that regard...



Comment (as in original post)

As seen on Rik Gheysens news page,
it has more information going back in time - as with the EU (Swedish) scandal of unrecycled dumped fluorescent light bulbs end 2011, also covered in a report on the Ceolas.net website.

As for LED lighting being so much better, that is not necessarily so:
RGB types are effectively combinations of pure red green and blue sources, without the smooth light output spectrum of incandescents.
Meanwhile the now popular and generally simpler/cheaper "white LEDs" have additional issues from effectively mimicking the light quality of fluorescents, that is, from bluey (relatively bright) type LED source light hitting phosphorescent wall coating.

More on LED issues here.
And that is of course without going into the not always warranted "great upfront expense for long term savings", for many less often used bulbs.
 

UK Parliament Debate on Light Bulbs

 
Post revised and updated May 24


Thank you to Dr. Robert Hanson for this information

Private Members Debate
Yesterday 22nd May in Westminster Hall,
a chamber of the UK parliament,
on future implications of the EU light bulb regulations:
video archive direct link


The issue, raised by Edinburgh MP Sheila Gilmore, covered the health issue arising out of banning incandescent bulbs, in particular problems with fluorescent bulb usage such as UV light and other electromagnetic radiation.

The All Party Committee on lighting referred to, embedded document (original source):




Regarding Edinburgh MP Gilmore, fellow Edinburghian... Edinburgher... (there is a whole debate online about what people from Edinburgh are called) Kevan has covered something similar before, on Savethebulb.org in June 2011

UK Parliament Early Day Motion on Incandescent Lamps
MP Sheila Gilmore has proposed Early Day Motion 1878 asking MPs to address the issue of continued availability of incandescent lamps for people suffering from diseases aggravated by the spectral and other properties of CFLi energy saving lamps.

During the consultation process the issue of medically significant sensitivity was discussed at length and assurance was given that there was no intention that people who would suffer as the result of using CFLi would be prevented from getting incandescent lamps. It was, however, left to the individual member states to arrange their legislation to allow for this. Needless to say most have not. As you can see from the post elsewhere about ‘Heatballs’ some countries, Germany in this case, are being quite draconian, preventing the import and sale of incandescent lamps.

This motion will hopefully address the issue of availability of incandescent lamps however does nothing to ensure the long term availability as there has to be a sufficient volume of sales to support the manufacture of them.

Readers from the UK are urged to write to or email their MP asking them to sign the early day motion to get some Parliamentary action on this issue. You can find out who your MP is on this website:

http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/

Thanks

Kevan Shaw

Comment

While understanding those with medical difficulties,
it is a little unfortunate that it is the only objection raised, and that in the process (perhaps to help curry favor) spokespeople generally give in about how "great it otherwise is to have the legislation to save the planet", unnecessarily playing into the hands of the legislators given the lack of overall energy savings as referenced.

In a typical ensuing exchange of pleasantries, the government representatives (in this case Environment Minister Richard Benyon) predictably counter how some alternative incandescent halogens supposedly are allowed, or how appropriate LEDs are coming, and the like.

As it happens, future halogen-type incandescent availability for ordinary use is in doubt looking at both EU and US legislation, but even if the alternatives were there, there are extensive arguments as to why the regulations in themselves are unnecessary and wrong, as covered in the Deception rundown.

This includes the typical "19% of electricity is used for lighting"
raised by the Minister in the above video debate:
The 19% figure includes much lighting irrelevant to incandescent replacement (also remembering that replacement lights use electricity too) such that only around 1% of grid electricity is saved, without going into additional lifecycle (manufacture, transport, recycling) energy use, as referenced in the link.

Given all the other reasons against regulations listed and referenced,
the health side-effects of incandescent replacements should not be the only issue raised:
Arguably it would strengthen - not weaken - their case if the health campaigners did not give in so easily on the other aspects...


Update 24 May:
As pointed out in the comments (thank you Steven),
looking more overall at saving energy and emissions,
then even if a light bulb policy was held as necessary,
stimulated market competition as best option, or as a second option taxation that can help pay for price lowering subsidies on alternatives, are both better than regulations:
Not just to keep choice, and not just to lower energy use and emissions, but to do so at the lowest possible cost to government and consumers - and regardless of whether you are a right wing (market) or left wing (tax) politician.
A more comprehensive look at alternative light bulb taxation and market policies with examples, Ceolas.net#li23x.
 

Leading a Double Life

 

A Double Life....
Just when you thought your bulb had blown, back on it comes :-)

No, wait!   A double life...you might think it's sitting there in the lamp, but it's actually moonlighting in the city of lights.



More seriously, this is the start of a couple of future posts on Lightbulb Lifespan.

There have been several film documentaries recently (Spanish, Austrian, Franco-German, covering the subject, relating to planned obsolescence, including the Phoebus light bulb cartel that fixed the incandescent lifespan standard at 1000 hours). Also, as covered before, the Leahy-Brandston e-book that looks at such manufacturer cooperation from an American angle, and other background information as per the Ceolas.net site.
Interesting historical "anomalies" include the long lasting Livermore Fire Station life bulb, and the mysterious Billinger "everlasting" life bulb invention.


The issue is not without relation to the current light bulb ban:
It has been forgotten by both politicians and journalists that the USA standard (for example)
specifies a 1000 hour minimum: Why such a minimum standard?

Brightness and lifespan tend to be trade offs, especially with incandescents - consumers are therefore unnecessarily denied short lasting but bright bulbs!

Certainly, it is the opposite of the "manufacturer cartel short lifespan" documentary coverages:
But the whole point is that all products have advantages, and regulations other than for usage safety are unnecessary in limiting choice. Market variety, driven by ensuring market competition, is the key to providing desirable products, with light bulbs as with anything else.
Clear information on packaging is sufficient - warranty backed as required for given lifespans.
Just like - in say Europe - different colors are used to easily show energy usage, or US Energy star ratings are used, similar could be done with lifespans, separately or combined,
so top rating might have same color or say "A" rating in each category, an "AA" bulb as it were.

Light bulb minimum lifespan standard:
As wrong and unnecessary as maximum energy usage standard, and the forgotten issue in all the talk about light bulb regulations.
 


Meanwhile, the much hailed supposed long CFL and LED lifespans,
have been found wanting in real life, hardly surprising given their unnatural lab specified origins.
Of course, coming back to the "planned obsolescence" arguments, also hardly surprising given that manufacturers are hardly going to drool over the lack of profit from selling you a light bulb you pretty well never have to change!

The only believable alternative is to sell truly long lasting bulbs very expensively to maintain profit, lots of taxpayer subsidies hiding the fact or not.
But as Kevan Shaw says in reviewing the latest Philips L Prize LED bulb:

Another point about the massive cost for these lamps is whether or not the claimed savings are realistic in domestic use. How many people will be using the same lighting after 22 years? How many will still be living in the same house or apartment? At 58 years old I have to question whether I will still be alive to realise these claimed savings! It really is not good enough that the best of these lamp replacement products should be priced so high....

Of course, as far as manufacturers are concerned, once the competing unprofitable cheap incandescents are banned, are they going to cry in their beer if CFLs and LEDs - which incidentally lack appropriate guarantees/warranties for claimed lifespans - happen to stop working a year or two later?

Of course not.
Ban achieved - Job Done!
 

More Dim Issues with Philips new LED Bulb

 
Continuing the Philips prize awarded LED bulb saga,
Kevan has confirmed some dimming and the issues of the bulb as also found by the US Government L Prize test review and designated lab reports in the main post earlier.

From Save the Bulb blog, 13 May 2012
(original post has some more images)

L Prize (Fail!)
I have spent the last couple of weeks in San Francisco and taken the opportunity to observe the impact of the Californian ban on incandescent lamps that was implemented in January 2011. Basically it has had zero effect. Standard incandescent lamps are freely available through all retail supply outlets. I have checked corner stores, supermarkets, neighborhood hardware stores and DIY sheds all have a full range of conventional incandescent lamps. The “Energy Saving” options vary considerably. Most stores have a reasonable complement of CFLs some have halogen incandescent replacements but only on hardware store and the DIY sheds carry any LED incandescent replacements and just the DIY shed had the L prize lamp that I was very keen to get my hands on. These LED options are all selling in the range $17 to $24.


There has been so much store set by the quality of the L prize lamp that I was very keen to get one as it seems unlikely we will get them in the UK anytime soon. The first thing that surprised me was the extent of packaging for what is supposed to be an environmentally friendly product.

When first switched on I have to concede that the appearance of the light was OK in comparison to the GE Reveal lamp that it was replacing. The reveal is an incandescent with a slight blue tint.


As expected when dimmed things changed dramatically:....



The L prize got cooler in appearance and the perceived colour rendering became much worse casting a gloomy grey in the space. the lamp also suddenly went out about half way through the travel of the dimmer’s slider, the GE lamp dimmed right down to the minimum setting. What was really alarming was that the L prize lamp would not switch on at dimmer settings below about 70%. This was a serious problem in this location where three way switching was installed.


Really I am somewhat disappointed in a product that cost me $19.75 and does not work reliably at less than full power even when it claims to be dimmable. Solutions such as this must be made fully compatible with existing wiring infrastructure.

Another point about the massive cost for these lamps is whether or not the claimed savings are realistic in domestic use. How many people will be using the same lighting after 22 years? How many will still be living in the same house or apartment? At 58 years old I have to question whether I will still be alive to realise these claimed savings! It really is not good enough that the best of these lamp replacement products should be priced so high and fail to meet reasonable performance expectations that at least they do not risk leaving people in darkness! I do feel that the general lamp buying public are being conned into overspending for overcomplicated and ineffective products.

This page from EarthLed shows a dissection of the L prize lamp. It really does question the holistic sustainability of replacing such an elegantly simple device as the traditional incandescent lamp with something that requires computing power that would shame the flight computers of the Mercury and Gemini space programmes and has more electronic components than a transistor radio! All in all the resources used to make this thing are truly excessive for the required functionality.

Comment

The mentioned Earthled dissection of the bulb is also on the post "(S)tripping the Light Fantastic", with extensive commenting.

On the Dimming issue,
unsurprisingly it mirrors CFL problems since LEDs also have spiky emission spectra and with these LED types also use similar (phosphorescent) coating to help spread the light.
And dimming after all is also an “energy saving” benefit, that ban proponents welcome!

Dimming and other problems were as said also highlighted in the official committee test review and designated test lab reports on
“All about the new Philips LED Bulb, and how it won the L-Prize”

Renowned lighting designer and Congress lighting consultant Howard Brandston concurs on the dimming and other issues..

"The testing of this LED lamp was very narrow in scope and did not include some of the most important aspects of residential lighting.
As a lighting designer my primary concerns is the quality of the color of light emitted throughout the complete cycle of being dimmed, a common situation in homes.
In this use the lamp leaves much to be desired so I would never specify it."

A further interesting observation today (May 16) by Kevan

Apparently what I have is not the L Prize lamps but a confusing look-alike also sold by Philips!
This one is a Chinese made version, The L prize version itself is ”Assembled in the USA”.
So Philips are knocking off their own products!
The L Prize version is obviously too expensive for normal retail and is going out through specialists such as EarthLed!

... So are Philips using L Prize specs highlighted in reviews (eg a comparatively high lumen per watt efficiency), and the “kudos” from winning the L Prize, to push sales of cheaper inferior Chinese versions in ordinary stores for Joe Public who is assumed not to question quality and specs?

No! Never! ;-)
 

More Fun and Games in the European Union

Updated March 30, first posted March 29

While people like me simply comment on light bulb issues,
we should acknowledge our heoroes on the coal face (pun intended), like Howard Brandston in the USA and Kevan Shaw in bonnie Scotland, who actually have to deal with the intransigient legislators!

As covered previously,
Howard was involved in the hearings preceding the US 2007 legislation, and has
commented about it in a worthy e-book read (co-authored with Michael P Leahy, as reviewed).
He has continued to be a lone voice among invited speakers at Congress hearings, such as the one by the Senate Energy Committee last year, and is currently getting a Facebook campaign together, for the general public as well as those with special interest in the issue.

Meanwhile Kevan has do battle with a never ending stream of EU regulation proposals (who knew there were so many lamp types ;-)), moreover written in incomprehensible English, as some of us have seen.
And, similarly to Howard, he is not just as a lighting designer "stakeholder", but also more broadly defending the needs on the public, including those with light sensitivity issues.


Before getting into this, to those not familiar with the EU:
The basic workings of the EU is covered in the introductory section to the Ceolas.net coverage of how the EU Light Bulb Ban came about, "Fun and Games in the European Union", http://ceolas.net/#euban.

So day-to-day it is run by something called the European Commission,
headed up by an unelected body of political cronies called Commissioners, with immense legislative and executive power - they have sole right to initiate legislation concerning all EU members, and also to see that the legislation is carried out.
[The mis-named "European Parliament" is basically a glorified talking shop, and like the nominally overseeing Council of Ministers, usually rubber stamp Commission decisions, with some comment or other addendum, to justify their existence.
Also, because Council decisions are more and more taken by qualified majority, any objecting party has to win over others, which becomes even less likely in the scenario where ministers jet in at regular intervals to sign off on reams of legislation that their COREPER bureaucrat armies stick under their noses]

It should be said that the Commission system had a certain logic when it was known as the High Authority, overseeing coal and steel production for 6 member states, but hardly nowadays.
A particular problem is that money keeps going missing - literally.
The Commission's own accountants have refused to sign off on the accounts for nearly 2 decades now! 2011 report, BBC report in 2007 here.
Insider critical accounts by those directly involved in EU accounting include Marta Andreasen, "Brussels Laid Bare", Paul van Buitenen, "Blowing the Whistle: Fraud in the European Commission", Bernard Connolly, "The Rotten Heart of Europe".
Needless to say they were bumped off rather than praised, while their corrupt masters either stayed in their jobs or got fat pay-offs for their Great Service.

So why do national governments play ball?
Because they also gain in the way the financing works.
The EU Budget was set up as a Gross rather than Net payment system, meaning that net gain countries like Greece make nominal initial contributions, basically to make them feel equal to others.
So countries pay in gross amounts, which they then do everything they can to claw back in all sorts of ways, in agricultural and local spending.
Needless to say the less clearly the money is sloshed around, the better for all concerned.
It is made worse still in that the EU, to win hearts and minds with minimal financial input, often requires "matching local funds" for local projects that they then stick their flag on and brag about - a funding mishmash that again makes auditing difficult.

So it is a Big Circle Game, and a pointless and enormously wasteful one, because the Budget system could of course be run on a Net Pay system: So for example Country X does not pay in 1 billion and desperately claws back 300 million, but simply pays in 700 million for pure EU cross-border project spending - and is responsible for its own local spending, therefore with less waste.
Put another way, it means that all EU Projects are directly financed and monitored instead.

The Commission has lots of Commissioners to satisfy 27 countries, giving obscure "matchstick-making" type responsibilities (look up ec.europa.eu) so everyone has a hook to hang their hat on (with lots of side-hooks for "directorates", departments, committees, and hangaround friends and cronies).

One eager committee is the Committee concerned with Eco-Design in the EU (suitably Orwellian sounding), setting energy efficiency standards on all kinds of products, including lighting.
It should be said that in a free market economy it is perfectly right and understandable to set standards so that products may be graded and more easily traded and sold, with everyone knowing what they are getting.
However, that of course does not necessitate banning products, that are otherwise safe to use.
The lack of logic in all other respects in which the Eco-design committee operates is seen in the Deception arguments 13-point rundown, as seen below or on separate page.

For some kind of legitimacy, this Committee, like other EU institutional organs, pretends - pretends seems to be the operative word - to take into account the wishes of "stakeholders", those with an interest in the legislation at hand (which, interestingly, is never assumed to be the ordinary consumer - the way that EU institutions deal with EU citizens is also dealt with in the account of how the EU ban on light bulbs came about, on the Ceolas.net site).

As a topical point, now on 1 April 2012 with big fanfare the EU will open its "Citizen's Initiative", a 1 million citizen petition system which was also cited as a means for those against the light bulb ban to voice their protest. More about this, and the initiative itself on the Ceolas.net site, http://ceolas.net/#citizenInit. The official EU site about it is here.
As seen the rigorous conditions and all the data required (name, address, place and date of birth, passport number etc for signatures) makes it next to impossible - and then the Commission can reject and alter any proposal anyway!

It is called "European Democracy", folks.




Enter Stakeholder Kevan.

From his blog, the following interesting posts,
edited extracts.

From March 27 post:

Bye bye T12 Fluorescent Lamps

While there has been much concern over the majority of the EcoDesign legislation on lighting emanating from Europe, there has been little attention paid to the impacts of the “Tertiary Lamps” rules.

April 1 2012 sees the banning in Europe of the manufacture and sale of T12 fluorescent tubes.
There are many millions of these older lamps and fitting still in daily use so this legislation will impact on many small businesses who are faced with having to change not just lamps but all their fittings. These lamps are also still in widespread use in the transport sector and can still be seen in London Tube trains of the 1960s and railway carriages in many countries dating from similar periods. So should we welcome this necessity to change at this time?

Kevan seems willing to concede an energy saving justification to their ban compared to other lighting, but the same principles clearly apply to them, in that energy saving mandates change product characteristics, that overall energy savings are limited, and that any "low price giving market failure" argument does not hold up and can be dealt with by several other policies if it did, as per the argumentation rundown on this blog.

T12 types are also being banned in the USA from July 14 2012: more.
I will likely follow this up in another post.


Earlier, more obvious hassle with the European Union...
(amazing news: those who run the EU don't like criticism - let alone any open debate)

Tuesday, February 28, 2012
They knoweth not what they do!

I have upset the EU by blogging the impact of the draft legislation on reflector lamps!

I received a call on Friday from Andras Toth, policy officer at the Directorate General for Energy [and overseeing the Eco-Design Committee] in response to articles in the Daily Mail and Daily Express last week.
He believed that my previous blog on this issue had been the source of these, as usual inflammatory, articles.
It was clear from the conversation that there was no intention to ban MR16, AR111 and other lamps and he felt that the provision for continuing IRC and Xenon filled versions, at least to 2016, answered that. Basically this provision does mean that some of these lamps will still be available, albeit at inflated prices, it does not, however, do anything to ensure that the current huge range of light outputs, beam angles and reflector options will still be available after September 2013.

Press statements from ELC and the Commission have tried to smooth out the situation however the lack of understanding is highlighted by the headline picture in the Commission’s article being a mains voltage rather than a low voltage lamp!

The bottom line remains that we do not know what products will be available after the September 2013 cut off. Requests for information that would enable me to actually work out the “Maximum Energy Efficiency Index” (MEEI) to both lamp manufacturers and the ELC remain unanswered at this date. Until we have this information for ALL currently available lamps no one can claim that lamps are not being banned by this legislation!




Monday, February 06, 2012
New Year New Ban!

MR16 and AR111 Low Voltage Tungsten Halogen Lamps to be banned in September 2013 with more efficient Infra-Red coated types not guaranteed beyond 2016.

This is the proposal in the Draft Legislation on reflector lamps that landed on my desk on January 24. Since then I have been trying to make sense of the implications. To be frank the actual proposal has come as quite a shock after being involved in both consultative and technical sessions on this over the past 3 years. During the most recent technical session in September we thought that the message had got across that there is no reasonable replacement for these LVTH lamps in the market now or in the foreseeable future that will meet the requirements for the professional applications . We also thought that the efficiency requirements would be set to deal with the older and less efficient classes of lamps such as the R40 , PAR38, PAR 30 and the like and permit the LVTH lamps to continue in use to replace the more critical applications for these technologies producing energy savings of 50% or more!

The delay in posting of this blog is that I have been trying to work out exactly what lamps are critically affected.
The problem here is that the energy performance criteria have been set around an arbitrary value of Lumens in a 90 degree cone from the centre of the lamp. This value is just not something that is published by lamp manufacturers. It has no sense or use in the consideration of reflector lamps and can only be properly measured using a goniphotometer, a seriously expensive and relatively rare piece of kit! Again this was pointed out to the technical meeting particularly by the individual countries representatives who will need to use these to undertake market surveillance in order to enforce these regulations.

So I am at this point unable to determine what lamps fall foul of this newly invented and complex metric, the “Maximum Energy Efficiency Index” (MEEI) all I can rely on are the statements in the guidance notes:

Stage 1 (2013)
Poor conventional low voltage halogen lamps (D class) are phased out even at low lumen outputs already in Stage 1.

Phases out quality conventional low voltage halogens starting with high lumen outputs (12V 50W MR16 lamp). Leaves only B-class enhanced lamps (infrared coated or xenon filled)

Stage 2 (2014)
Completes the phase-out started in Stage 1, now applying to low lumen output lamps.

The legislation will be reviewed in 2015.
Meanwhile the lamp industry has no guarantee that TH IRC lamps will be permitted beyond 2016 therefore have no guaranteed return on investment to buy the necessary machinery for the IR coating process. At any event the technical meeting was advised that both the machinery and coating materials have become a monopoly supply in Europe so prices are very likely to increase significantly in the short and medium term.

The legislation also limits efficiencies of LED solutions to points that just cannot be achieved by high quality colour rendering devices and really fails to address the problems in achieving colour consistency and clean narrow beam angles. The meeting in September was also told that in particular MR16 LED lamp replacements could not have their lives guaranteed as components in the integral power supplies are running beyond their design limits.

So we are now in a position where we cannot determine the MEEI of currently available lamps so we just do not know how to correctly advise our clients for whom we have specified LVTH solutions over the past 25 years. As and when the lamp manufacturers provide responses to this I will update this information.

Kevan Shaw 6 February 2012

Regarding the ELC manufacturer association comments

As an industry we are confident that in the future there will remain an adequate choice of high quality, low voltage lamps to satisfy different consumer budgets and needs.

Hardly surprising, for more about the ELC see http://ceolas.net/#ELC.

The mentioned EU press release predictably denies there is a problem, re “press rumors” that low voltage halogens are going to be banned.

As usual they give the impression that they are doing everyone a “favour” by enforcing lower energy usage, ignoring that people can choose it themselves if they want, since of course it also changes lamp characteristics as well as lamp cost.


I am clearly biased against both the EU (as currently run) and its regulations.
However, one can also base such criticism on references and official data, and in the case here, on other ways to achieve any energy saving objectives, even if such objectives themselves are questionable.