Disc Power

It should be clear by now to readers of this blog how incandescent light bulbs are popular, simple, cheap and yes, efficient, in needing few parts to produce bright light, and without supposed energy saving to society (incandescents as the "real green" bulbs).

Unsurprising, then, that people around the world are using workarounds to be able to keep using them. Dumb governments, who make pointless and unpopular laws to suit lobbying profitmakers rather than their citizens, will always find such reactions.

In Europe as in North America, one such avenue has been the use of still legal "rough service" type of bulbs, as well as currently temporarily allowed halogen types.
There are also alternative voltage and current altering ways (in bulbs or externally) that extend incandescent lifetime albeit with some brightness loss.
The various workarounds were most recently covered in the post "USA and Canada Light Bulb Ban: Now and in the Future" from earlier this year.

One innovative way was as seen recently launched in the USA by two bright entrepreneurs, Lisa Elder and Trishah Woolley, using a disc with any ordinary light bulb.
To expand a little more about the California based Power Disc venture, edited extracts from the website, powerdisc.com...

It consists of a nylon reinforced thermoset plastic disc, a solid-state rectifying diode and a foam washer with an adhesive surface. The PowerDiscTM is attached to the base of a light bulb by means of the 3M adhesive coated foam so that the center contact of the bulb is in contact with one end of the diode. When screwed into a light socket, the other end of the diode contacts the center contact of the light socket.

By converting the electricity power used by the bulb from AC to DC, the PowerDisc™ significantly reduces energy consumption up to 42% and also extends the bulb life up to 100 times therefore reducing bulb replacement costs.

In other words, 120 volts of alternating current (AC) are converted to approximately 85 volts direct current (DC).
The light bulb filaments, that actually create the light we see, will burn at a much lower temperature...The degree to which the filament is heated is directly related to the life of the bulb.

Using the formula from the General Electric Incandescent Lamps Booklet (ref. GE #TP-1100R2 5/84) we calculate the life of the bulb with the reduced voltage.... example...

[On the light output reduction issue, making comparisons:]

As it is well known in the industry, all energy efficient light bulbs will have some reduction in lumens (light output), initially up to 30% over the first couple of months. Take note of the packaging for CFL and LED bulbs, they claim they will operate at 70% efficacy - which means they know their bulbs will lose 30% in lumens. Example, the packaging states 1000 lumens but they "guarantee" that the bulb will operate at 700 lumens.

Also the "long life" incandescent and halogen bulbs which operate at 130 volts, when you use it in a 120 volt socket, there is an immediate 25% lumen loss from what is stated on the packaging. Example, the packaging states 1000 lumens but in a 120V socket it is really 750 lumens.

With the PowerDisc there is also an initial lumen loss, the difference is the bulb will maintain that lumen level for the life of the bulb- it won't get dimmer and dimmer over time until it burns out. If it is necessary to maintain similar lumen levels it is recommended to increase the wattage of the light bulb used. The lumen level of the light bulb is dependent upon the manufacturer, clear or frosted and type of light bulb being used. Also keep in mind the lumen level you have upon insertion will be the lumen level for the rest of the life of your bulb until the day it burns out, which means it does not diminish over time, whereas with CFLs and LEDs you get around a 30% lumen loss in the first couple of months, then it slowly decreases until it is very dim. This makes for safety and security issues in certain areas.

If it is important to maintain the visible light level, a higher wattage bulb should be used...but as bulb wattage increases, efficiency in the transformation of electricity to light also increases.

So to begin with the downside, there is a seeming 25-30% brightness loss which means higher electricity costs for a bulb of given brightness, compared with an ordinary simple incandescent bulb.
But... the point is of course is that as such bulbs gradually get banned (and in the USA as in Europe there is talk of controlling the availability of rough service incandescents for ordinary consumers), it allows the extended use of any such bulb without hoarding.
Also, as they say, fluorescents and LEDs dim as they are used, reducing their effective light output too.
Finally the advantage of not having to change bulbs may be useful in some locations.

Overall, good to see this innovative spirit from others who are against the ban - and doing something about it!


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

Incandescents: The Real Green Bulbs Also in Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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


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


Earth Saving?
Certainly sparing the earth much mining for minerals


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


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


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

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

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



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




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

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

Update 27 November. Original post 26 November

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

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

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


12 Good Reasons for keeping Tungsten Halogen






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

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



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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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




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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Thank You!

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

EU Commission Light Bulb Ban Review 2: Lighting Industry Views

See a previous post which covers all the details of the review of the 2009 light bulb regulations that has been started by the EU (European) Commission.


LEDs Magazine is an excellent USA based publication covering mainly technical issues relating to LED lighting.
While obviously supportive of LED development (and why not), the October article covering the upcoming EU review of lighting regulations was surprisingly critical of the EU phase out - as were the industry representatives interviewed, although obviously from a perspective of their own eventual successful sales.
A delay of the halogen phase-out to 2019 is proposed, which as it happens is close to the EU proposal of a delay to 2018.


Regarding LightingEurope, the industry association covered in the article, quoting from their website introduction:

LightingEurope is an industry association representing leading European lighting manufacturers, national lighting associations, and companies producing materials. We are committed to innovation, sustainability, quality and leadership. We contribute to shape policy and establish industry standards and guidelines.
We are dedicated to promoting efficient lighting practices for the benefit of the global environment, human comfort, and the health and safety of consumers [and our profits].

If incandescents were so bad, then they could of course just stop making these "terrible" bulbs!
Manufacturers change standards all the time - without government bans.
"Unfortunately" someone else would of course then make the cheap popular bulbs.
Hence the irony: if incandescents were not so popular, there would be no "need" to ban them.

Incidentally, it is perfectly alright and even to be expected, that GE, Philips, Osram et alia lobby for a ban on patent expired cheap generic popular incandescents for their own profits from expensive patented alternatives.
The issue is with politicians - and people like the EU bureaucrats - handing them profits on a plate, to the detriment of consumers and their free choice, and with little if any overall energy saving for the extensive reasons provided elsewhere here (see pages on the left), which also answers "green" concerns in terms of which bulbs are actually "green".


Below article:
Energy efficiency may come at the cost of consumer confidence
Caroline Hayes, LEDs Magazine October 2013

Comment

LightingEurope believes that no LED-based lamps will meet the Stage 6 requirements of European Commission (EC) Regulation 244/2009.... LightingEurope advocates that 2019 is a more realistic date for halogen bulbs to be replaced, rather than the current deadline of 2016. There are several reasons for this request: affordability, a desire for consumer choice, and quality issues....
Jürgen Sturm, secretary general of Lighting­Europe, is concerned that an accepted technology is taken away with no viable alternative offered...

A delay is better than an immediate ban, and overall the conclusion is welcome, although if LEDs "keep getting better and cheaper" then presumably consumers would want to buy them - voluntarily - without bans on alternatives.

Why the eternal assumption that we, as consumers, are idiots?
And why the assumption that we are idiots because we may think (Shock, Horror!) that lighting products should primarily be judged on lighting ability.


As it happens, it's hardly out of worry for consumer choice that the manufacturers want a delay - rather that there are still too many cheap alternatives that might, er, distract consumers from their own expensive wares...

[Jürgen Sturm]...the fear is that halogen bulbs will be phased out before the market is mature, leaving low-quality LEDs to be seen as the only option, based on prices. This will be detrimental to the maturing market, Sturm warns...
A related issue is that there is no provision for what Sturm calls "market surveillance." Each EU member state is to be responsible for policing the pricing and quality of LED replacements. What is affordable in Sweden may be unacceptable in Romania, for example, he points out. The lack of market surveillance in member states is a particular worry for LightingEurope...

[Nick Farraway]...there will be many products imported without quality controls and sold alongside the expensively produced ones.... consumers, buying cheaper brands, are left with a poor impression of LED lighting.

A worry then that cheap (Chinese) imports will displace profits from their expensive bulbs - with an ominous call for market surveillance.

It is perfectly understandable that a maker of a quality product does not like that his/her product might get a bad name from rival manufacturers making cheaper, worse, similar ones.
If technical specifications are not met by the imports there is obviously a legal case as well, and imported bulbs like all bulbs should meet whatever the label holds on lifespan and other criteria.
But regulating "quality" is a questionable business - and the manufacturers seem to have regulation on the brain.

There is a market, and there is an ability to sell: Show it, folks.

Market surveillance is needed for dangerous-to-use products.
If market surveillance is called for here, why doesn't Big Gov stop people buying anything cheap and shoddy.
Hey, ban fast food - expensive high quality food is better for us!
Hey, ban cheap batteries and washing up liquids - so we only buy the good expensive alternatives!
(Which are advertised as such of course "expensive to buy but cheap in the long run" and/or otherwise in having better performance quality - and which light bulb manufacturers could too, instead of crying like this all the time).

This is also of course similar to why incandescents were banned in the first place (getting cheap popular competition out of the way).
It is also similar to the "call for shop inspections" by a sympathetic Commissioner Oettinger, to get rid of the legal rough service incandescents that people again "unfortunately" might buy.

For hotels and commercial installations, the payback period should be 6–12 months, but for homes, where lights are used less, the payback may be extended to a period of 3–4 years, which is not such an obvious financial return for consumers.

Well, well. There's an admission.
Although 3-4 years is still far too low for the infrequent usage of most household bulbs (average 20-25 bulbs per household in the EU, more in North / West European households) - as covered elsewhere here.
Longer time still, when taken as the unsubsidised payback cost per LED to the taxpayer.

For Farraway, there are other flaws in the EcoDesign Regulations.
One is that the low specified CRI (color rendering index) may deter end users from LED lamps. Halogen lamps are popular with consumers because they render color well, he says, enhancing interiors. He is concerned that the EU is allowing quality to be diluted.

He fears lessons have not been learned from the introduction of energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs. "Compact fluorescent is a good technology to save money, but is a poor light, and therefore unpopular," he says, referring to its green hue. He wants a much more stringent color metric for replacement bulbs. The EU wants 80 CRI, but Farraway wants 95 CRI or greater, although he concedes that the obstacle to this is a more difficult and more costly process technology.

While recognizing the central issue all bulbs have advantages - as it happens, incandescents have a maximal Color Rendering Index of 100 - it's hardly "progress" to push for expensive LED clones in such respects.
CFLs and LEDs have advantages other than CRI.
Imposing incandescent-style CRI standards just shows how messed up the regulatory thinking is - by all sides concerned.

[Farraway]...the price will decrease as volume increases for an affordable product that can last 40,000 hours, compared to an incandescent bulb's 700 hours.

700 hours?
If your associates didn't stick with Phoebus cartel standards for household consumers - and even that is 1000 hrs - then they could last 20,000 hrs and more, as per Aerotech and other incandescent bulbs for industry.
Conversely, the lab specificed 40,000 hr life is doubtful on several grounds in real life (including the dimming with age of LEDs) - and even the EU Commission's own VHK/VITO research report uses 20, 000 hrs.




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

"Why the light bulb ban in so many countries, if it's such a bad idea?"

Updated 1 October, original post 29 September

Those who have read the "How regulations are wrongly justified" point by point argumentation
will see how this could have come about.
Nevertheless, the "many countries" response is an understandable first reaction and keeps coming up, so is worth answering separately with summarized arguments, maybe added as a point to the above section.

Environmentally, standard incandescent light bulbs have been a simple visible target
also for mainstream politicians wishing to be seen to be "doing something" and be "acting resolutely" to save the planet, in the wake of the global warming debate/hysteria of the early 2000's.

As covered more in detail via references in the argumentation rundown, light bulb manufacturers GE, Philips Osram/Sylvania happily joined in the ban chorus to limit choice of the for them less profitable incandescents just as they did with their Phoebus cartel limiting incandescent lifespan choice (hence standard 1000hrs), with political acquiescence also at that time, in blocking USA and Europe market access for any competitor with other ideas.
More on this: http://ceolas net/#phoebuspol

Meanwhile, regarding developing countries worldwide, the United Nations via the UNEP en.lighten program with Philips and Osram are coaxing the implementation of incandescent bans and via the World Bank funding a switch to their "energy saving" bulbs which they presumably would not otherwise sell.
How Philips, Osram, the UN and the World Bank en.lighten the World
Any journalist can check up these matters, the point being that while manufacturers will always seek profitable advantages, they should not be offered undue help, the real blame being with politicians and public officials.

Some tropical countries have been urged to ban incandescents on the grounds of their heat release, in also working against air conditioning cooling, also seen in US Energy Dept building codes. As it happens, in parallell argumentation incandescent heat release is said to be irrelevant in proportionally replacing some heat from other room sources :-)
Of course, incandescents can always voluntarily be substituted in warm countries or seasonal conditions, or chosen anyway for light quality and other described advantages.

The announced ban in China relates more to helping their large profitable CFL/LED industry (with outsourced manufacture by the mentioned manufacturers), rather than any EU type "earth saving" salvation.


Overall, this is also about governments banning rather than countries banning:
new governments don't necessarily agree with implemented bans.
US Republicans are now against the ban, a new Canada government has delayed the ban,
Australia's new conservative government is reportedly against it like other "climate change" inspired taxes and bans, while the incoming New Zealand government scrapped the ban decision by the outgoing government.


Still, any lack of political opposition and will to overturn bans also reflects apparent public indifference. Given the popularity of standard bulbs when consumers have free choice, this might seem surprising.
But firstly - if aware of the ban - there is a natural assumption that it relates to a safety issue with the bulbs. After all, that is (or was) the normal reason to ban products, like lead paint.
And no-one campaigns to bring back lead paint!

But most people, in North America and Europe and likely elsewhere, seem unaware of the ban.
One reason is the gradual phase-out in most countries.
Another reason is that industrial (eg mining etc) incandescent bulbs are now finding their way into American and European stores and shops to meet demand.
There is a double irony here:
Firstly, such bulbs tend to use "even" more energy for the same brightness than standard incandescents (annoying the politicians!)
Secondly, at a still relatively low cost (eg 1 or 2$ or euros) they can last much longer, up to 20 000 hours, which is why as said they were successfully kept away from ordinary consumers until the post-ban demand arose (annoying the major manufacturers!). Ah yes.

So, for example, German shops are increasingly offering such incandescent light bulbs, but (as from the Tagesspiegel 2012) the European Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger said checks should be made to ensure these were not being sold for domestic use...

The commission has called on German authorities to carry out in-shop inspections to police the ban.
Germany's state market surveillance authorities, who would be responsible for these inspections, offered a mixed response to the EU's request. Berlin and Brandenburg's authorities said they would need extra employees, while the North Rhine-Westphalia office said they had not planned any measures to police the light bulb ban so far."

Rather more colourfully put by Der Standard newspaper, about the Commissioner's supposed heated reaction (put in Google translate etc at your leisure)...

EU-Energiekommissar Günther Oettinger soll dies so echauffiert
haben, dass er ein Verbot der stoßfesten Spezialglühbirne anregte und
nationale Marktüberwachungsbehörden dazu aufrief, sie sollten
überprüfen, dass nur ja nicht stoßfeste neben nichtstoßfesten
Glühbirnen angeboten werden.
So würden EU-Vorgaben unterlaufen, sagte
eine seiner Sprecherinnen in deutschen Medien.

Yes, how terrible if people can buy what light bulbs they want!
 

Why Incandescent Light Bulb Ban is Wrong:The Deeper Reasons

The worldwide attempts to ban incandescent bulbs by defined standards have met some resistance mainly in North America (funding block of USA incandescent ban implementation as renewed July 2013, 2 year implementation delay in Canada to 2014, with possible further delay or abandonment).

As the phase out continues, it has become obvious what the main talking points are.


Usual arguments:

1. If it's a ban or not.
The response being "We are not banning any bulbs, just making them more energy efficient,
you can still buy similar incandescent bulbs!"
Not allowing certain bulbs obviously bans them, and the several reasons the above does not hold is covered on the page How Regulations are Wrongly Justified, point 1

2. How terrible the fluorescent "energy saving" bulbs (CFLs) are.
Again the standard reply is "Well you can still buy types of incandescent bulbs..and look at the new LED bulbs!"
Certainly there are issues with fluorescents, also covered via above link, but the obvious retort about other alternatives should not be accepted either.
There is a flurry of "Great LED bulbs" promotion on the internet.
Certainly all bulbs have advantages, but more intrinsically,
Incandescent = Bulb
Fluorescent = Tube
LED = Sheet
in biggest relative advantages.
There is something strange about "progress" being cloning simple existing alternatives.
Besides, the rare earth mineral use of LEDs and other environmental issues of these complex bulbs should not be ignored either.
See How Regulations are Wrongly Justified, point 5 and later points in that rundown.


The following therefore is summary of arguments that focus on what most commentators seem to ignore or not know about.
They also appear in the linked rather lengthy discourse, but I wanted to highlight and sharpen some of the points made.
While originally aimed at a US audience, it has parallels in the EU and elsewhere, as the further references in the above linked rundown shows.

Much is applicable also to houses, cars, white goods, vacuum cleaners, TV sets, computers and all else subject to increasing and choice reducing regulation.


Industrial Policy and Energy Efficiency Regulation, as on Light Bulbs

Energy saving is not the only reason to choose a bulb,
incandescents have several advantages over replacement technology,
and touted "allowed" halogen type replacements will be phased out too.
Halogen incandescents still have differences anyway and cost much more for marginal usage savings which is why they are not popular either with consumers or politicians - no "halogen switchover programs".

Re "old obsolescent" incandescents,
that also means they are well known in usage compared to questionably safe alternatives.

Progress is not a bunch of bureacrats setting arbitrary energy usage cut off points.
Progress involves competition with existing alternatives: governments keen on helping "energy saving" products to market can always do so, without necessarily having continuing subsidies on those products.


Society laws should be about society savings,
not about what light bulb Johnny wants to use in his bedroom, personal money savings or not.
Money savings are hardly there (or take a VERY long time) for most rarely used bulbs in 40+ bulb US households, Energy Star data.
Tax payer subsidies for CFL/LED bulbs should be remembered, as for utilities:
Money savings are not there anyway when utilities are compensated for lower sales (eg California)

Overall society energy savings are negligible as well.
Cambridge Scientific Alliance (normally UK Gov supporting in advising on energy use reduction):

"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......
.....Which begs the question: is it really worth it?
Politicians are forcing a change to a particular technology which is
fine for some applications but not universally liked, and which has
disadvantages.
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."

The society savings are comparatively small also on US Dept of Energy grid data, around 1%, and that does not include the greater life cycle energy use of the more complex replacements, or the fact that night use involves mainly spare grid capacity anyway
(= already there, for whoever wants to pay for it), or other factors as linked.

Supposed CO2 savings hardly there either,
as coal plants are slow and expensive to turn down at relevant times outside peak demand (DEFRA, APTECH referenced, previous link).
Effectively, the same coal is often burned regarding what bulb is on or off.


"Sustainability"?
Apart from negligible society usage savings, complex CFL/LED replacements involve more energy and CO2 in mining, manufacture (including component parts) transport and recycling - while if not recycled, then one has the dumping of mercury containing fluorescents and the loss of rare earth minerals of LEDs.

Easier to locally make simple generic cheap regular bulbs for small and startup companies to give local jobs too:
compared to patented complex bulbs mostly made in major (China) plants and brought over on low grade bunker-oil powered ships.

Long lasting low cost 10 000 - 20 000 hr incandescent bulbs can and are being made for mining and other industry, but kept away from consumer outlets for industrial political reasons, as follows.


Why did GE, Osram/Sylvania and Philips welcome the ban?
Why welcome what you can or can't make?

GE, Osram/Sylvania and Philips involvement in US lighting legislation
has been well covered in the press (eg Moorhead of Philips own
description of involvement, and GE executives on Gov advisory board),
and in a 2011 book by Howard Brandston co authored with Michael Leahy
"I, Light Bulb".
Howard Brandston (Congress consultant on lighting, a NY lighting
designer by profession) was himself involved in the hearings leading
up to the ban

Quote: The NEMA Lamp Subcommittee was composed of General Electric,
Osram Sylvania, and Phillips, the same industrial giants who formed
the old Phoebus Cartel back in 1924.
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 then announced its
support for energy efficient lighting policy...
http://ceolas.net/#phoebuspol

And the Phoebus cartel?
That is why 1000 hr standard life on regular bulbs endures - they fixed it.
As said, incandescent bulbs lasting 20 000 hrs can and are being made at low
cost for industry like mining.


And now?
Financed by the World Bank under UN auspices, Philips and Osram are part of the UNEP en.lighten program allowing profitable disposal worldwide in developing countries of CFL (or LED) light bulbs that they presumably would not otherwise sell for equivalent income.
The supposed society savings are negligible as previously referenced, and not counting dumping of mercury containing CFLs and loss of rare earth minerals in LEDs.

It's a bit as if generic patent-free penicillin was blocked and discouraged, so pharmaceutical companies could sell their expensive patented replacements to poor African countries.

There is nothing wrong in private enterprise looking for profit.
There is every wrong in assisting them by removing competition rather than increasing it.


Product standards,
are always welcome for consumer information and to assist cross-border trade.
However, it does not necessitate banning products not meeting the standards.
Even if incandescents needed specific targeting, they could be taxed and the income used to lower prices of alternatives (so people "not just hit by taxes").
But as described, governments could rather help alternatives to market without continuing subsidies, and get the manufacturers themselves to properly market their products.

People have always desired products that save energy.
"Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run":
If that is true, then as with batteries (Energizer bunny commercials) and washing up liquids, manufacturers could advertise accordingly, rather than run to regulators lobbying for bans on less profitable cheap patent expired regular bulb alternatives.

Energy saving is good,
but "energy waste" hardly comes from a personal choice of a product to use for its specific advantages,
"energy waste" is rather from unnecessary product use, as with municipal and office lighting continually left on at night.


How many politicians should it take to change a light bulb?
None
How many people should be allowed to choose?
Everyone
 

Lightbulb Conspiracy Documentary by Cosima Dannoritzer

Updates May 30, July 23, Aug 27, 2012 and Oct 9 2013

As a company summary puts it, "Pyramids of Waste (2010) also known as 'The lightbulb conspiracy' is a documentary about how our economic system based on consumerism and planned obsolescence is breaking our planet down."

While this documentary was aired on European TV channels a year or so ago as an ARTE production, it has also started doing the film festival circuit, and so in recent weeks has gained renewed attention, or indeed new attention, as in North America...

Trailer

The documentary itself, standard 53 min version with English narration

English narration with options of different subtitles: here (alternative link)

Longer version (1 hour 15 min) in German

At 15 minutes interesting additional info about General Electric USA: Reduction also of flashlight lamp life.... "to not last longer than the batteries used"...

Long version (1 hr 15 min) in French

At 15 minutes interesting additional info about General Electric USA: Reduction also of flashlight lamp life.... "to not last longer than the batteries used"...

Long 1 hr 17 min version now also in Spanish, originally shown April and October 2012 on main Spanish public TV channel: Link to RTVE video

Spanish version also on Vimeo:

Synopsis written by the film's director Cosima Dannoritzer

Once upon a time..... products were made to last. Then, at the beginning of the 1920s, a group of businessmen were struck by the following insight: 'A product that refuses to wear out is a tragedy of business' (1928). Thus Planned Obsolescence was born.

Shortly after, the first worldwide cartel was set up expressly to reduce the life span of the incandescent light bulb, a symbol for innovation and bright new ideas, and the first official victim of Planned Obsolescence. During the 1950s, with the birth of the consumer society, the concept took on a whole new meaning, as explained by flamboyant designer Brooks Stevens: 'Planned Obsolescence, the desire to own something a little newer, a little better, a little sooner than is necessary...'. The growth society flourished, everybody had everything, the waste was piling up (preferably far away in illegal dumps in the Third World) - until consumers started rebelling...

The current throwaway climate - where the latest technology is outdated after a year and electronics are cheaper to replace than to repair – is the basis for economic growth. But infinite consumption is unsustainable with finite resources: With the economy crumbling and consumers becoming increasingly resistant to the practice, has planned obsolescence reached the end of its own life? Combining investigative research and rare archive footage with analysis by those working on ways to save both the economy and the environment, this documentary charts the creation of ‘engineering to fail’, its rise to prominence and its recent fall from grace.

DOXA Festival (more below) review biography:

Cosima Dannoritzer is a filmmaker specializing in history and ecology who has worked for broadcasters in the UK, Germany and Spain.

Her previous films include: Re-Building Berlin (Channel 4, U.K., 1992, Journalism Prize of the Anglo-German Society 1993), Germany Inside Out (BBC, U.K. / YLE, Finland, 2001), If Rubbish Could Speak (TVE, Spain, 2003, awards from 'Ekotopfilm' and The'Green Vision Film Festival') Electronic Amnesia (TVE, Spain, 2006)

Interview with Cosima Dannoritzer about the documentary, in Spanish

Another online TV discussion about the documentary and planned obsolescence can be seen here, Arte TV, choice of French or German. (thank you to Peter at Gluehbirne.ist.org for this)

May 3 article by Matthew Hoekstra in the Richmond Review

Planned obsolescence subject of Light Bulb Conspiracy documentary

A documentary partly inspired by a Richmond author's book screens in Vancouver next week as part of the DOXA Documentary Film Festival.

The Light Bulb Conspiracy, written and directed by Cosima Dannoritzer of Spain, will make its Canadian premiere at the festival. Dannoritzer's 75-minute documentary explores why consumer products don't last, and the concept of planned obsolescence—the deliberate shortening of a product lifespan to boost consumer demand.

Richmond author Giles Slade served as one of the filmmaker's first points of reference. Slade wrote a book on the topic in 2006: Made To Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America.

In an e-mail, Dannoritzer said her idea of making the film dates to her childhood. She remembers her mother, in the 1970s, trying in vain to get spare parts for a broken appliance. "That's when I heard the word 'planned obsolescence' for the first time. Then, a few years ago, I filmed a huge stack of discarded computers in a recycling plant and started wondering how broken they really were, and read all these crazy conspiracy theories about eternal light bulbs and everlasting cars on the Internet."

In 2007, she began probing deeper and interviewed Slade in New York for a few scenes in the documentary. "Book and film have several things in common, but readers of the book can get new stories from the book which are not in the film, and get new stories from the film which are not in the book," said Dannoritzer. The 2010 film centres on a plan among light bulb manufacturers to create short-lasting products in order to increase profits. The film also uncovers the story of an American fire station with an old-fashioned light bulb that's been working for decades and the quest of one man to fix a printer that others suggest he throws out.

An earlier March 2011 review from Apfelkraut.org

The untold story of planned obsolescence

Did you know that the lifetime of light bulbs once used to last for more than 2500 hours and was reduced – on purpose – to just 1000 hours?

Did you know that nylon stockings once used to be that stable that you could even use them as tow rope for cars and its quality was reduced just to make sure that you will soon need a new one?

Did you know that you might have a tiny little chip inside your printer that was just placed there so that your device will “break” after a predefined number of printed pages thereby assuring that you buy a new one?

Did you know that Apple originally did not intend to offer any battery exchange service for their iPods/iPhones/iPads just to enable you to continuously contribute to the growth of this corporation?

This strategy was maybe first thought through already in the 19th century and later on for example motivated by Bernhard London in 1932 in his paper “Ending the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence”. The intentional design and manufacturing of products with a limited lifespan to assure repeated purchases is denoted as “planned/programmed obsolescence” and we are all or at least most of us upright and thoroughly participating in this doubtful endeavor.

Or did you not recently think about buying a new mobile phone / computer / car / clothes / … because your old one unexpectedly died or just because of this very cool new feature that you oh so badly need?

A really well done documentary that provides a comprehensive overview about and a detailed insight into this topic recently aired on Arte and other European television networks. It is entitled “The Light Bulb Conspiracy – The untold story of planned obsolescence” (aka “Pyramids of Waste”, DE: “Kaufen für die Müllhalde”, FR: “Prêt à jeter”, ES: “Comprar, tirar, comprar”) and is a French/Spanish production directed by Cosima Dannoritzer.

Recordings of the movie have been uploaded to various video portals, for example currently available on YouTube in EN/International with Norwegian subtitles, DE, FR and ES. Just the official TV and Internet broadcasts were viewed by over 2,500,000 people. If you like to follow up on some of the documentary’s content, here are the links: The light bulb at the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department can be watched here via web cam. Wikipedia has some more information on the Phoebus cartel in English and German. The referenced clip about the tremendous waste of ink by inkjet printers can be found at Atomic Shrimp: “The Dirty Little Secret Of Inkjet Printers”. The software to reset the page counter of various Epson printers can be found here: SSC Service Utility for Epson Stylus Printers. The people that made “iPod’s Dirty Secret” are the Neistat Brothers. The tough guy from Ghana that collects evidences at the dumping grounds to identify the orignators of electric waste is Mike Anane and he also contributed to the report “Poisoning the poor – Electronic waste in Ghana” issued by Greenpeace.

That planned obsolescence may be needed or even is substantial to appease the ever-growing hunger to achieve continuous and distinct economic growth that is natural to nations with advanced economies aka developed (?) countries is one part. The past and present is comprised of numerous advocates and supporters with well-engineered argumentations in favor of this business strategy. But even the ultimate argument gets immediately and indisputably absurd and unreasonable when it comes to the thereby produced waste – the other part of planned obsolescence.

“The Light Bulb Conspiracy” quite clearly showed where this leads to and especially where all the resulting waste is dumped. Let’s keep that in mind while impatiently waiting for the release of the next generation of the iPhone …

Those on Facebook can catch up on news about the documentary and related events, in English, German and Spanish:

The Light Bulb Conspiracy

Kaufen für die Müllhalde

Comprar, Tirar, Comprar

Comment

Updated May 30, May 31 (I may expand on this comment over the next few days)

This is one of the planned posts here, in the ongoing "series" about Light bulb lifespan, as introduced the other day with the "Leading a Double Life" post, which also deals with some of the principles involved.

The documentary is well made and researched with interesting information and interviews. It opens the door to all kinds of "sustainability" support, and reviews typically link to sites like "The Venus Project" "Zeitgeist movement" etc.

The documentary also points out how long-lasting Communist bulbs were kept from Western markets, but also how times are changing, so that now Warner Philips, grandson of the Philips founder, is turning to making LED bulbs "that last 25 years".

The 2 main issues are therefore

# how one might make sure that longer lasting light bulbs and other products are made

# whether one should only make durable sustainable products "to stop consumerist waste"

To begin with, while the Phoebus cartel was certainly detrimental to consumers (http://ceolas.net/#phoebuspol), the point is not "how bad capitalism is" - it is how bad any lack of competition is.

Quality as well as lifespan arises from market competition.

One of the common misconceptions is that "Capitalism is about Free Markets". But both Capitalists and Socialists dislike Free Markets! Certainly the Competition that is, and should be, at the heart of Free Markets. That is why, yes, state intervention is good: To initially help new inventions to market - but not to continually support them. That means that long lasting as well as short lasting products would be available.

As covered in the previous post, short lasting products - have advantages too: Not everyone will live in one place, or use products a lot. Moreover - with say computers or cars - people want new products for their new features, new innovations and possibilities. With light bulbs there are, as said, even specific advantages to shorter lasting bulbs, in that they tend to be brighter.

Obviously though, whatever the product, the more parts that can be recycled, the better, alternatively, that some products are refurbished and kept going for poorer local or third world consumers.

To ensure lack of dumping is therefore the point - not just to make longer lasting products!

Quality long lasting products - appropriately guaranteed (warrantied) - will always be more expensive, as otherwise the maker makes no profit. Competition keeps the price, and profits, down, and of course also forces manufacturers into market research to satisfy consumer desires, with lifespan as other with other characteristics. Regarding often-replaced products, notice how long lasting batteries and washing up liquids are marketed and sold. People are not stupid: Relevant long-lasting products will always be bought.

As mentioned, the documentary brings in the grandson of the Philips founder, Warner Philips, and how he with his company Lemnis Lighting is making "more environmentally friendly 25 year lasting LED bulbs". Of course these much more profitable complex expensive patented bulbs, is what the Phoebus cartel companies Philips, GE, Osram etc are making too, having lobbied for and achieved a ban on simple incandescent bulbs, as covered and documented on Ceolas.net.

One should not be lost on the sustainability irony, in terms of what used to be very simple locally made bulbs that you can make in your garage (and some pretty literally do: check out carbon filament light bulb maker Bob Kyp in Florida), incandescent bulbs which also can be made long lasting as the documentary says, now being banned. Such long lasting bulbs (up to 20 000 hours lifespan at relatively low cost) which before were kept for mining and other industry, now reaching ordinary consumer markets in post-ban Europe, to the annoyance of the EU Commission, as covered in other posts! (How terrible if people can buy what light bulbs they want). Instead, the desired development by politicians and major companies crying about their new-found "environmental values", is for complex, less known, less safety proven and rare earth mineral exhausting CFL or LED bulbs to be shipped around the world on bunker oil fuelled ships and have unlikely-followed recycling mandates put on them.... and, even more ironically, to marginal if any overall energy savings as referenced.

As for the lifespan values that underlie the documentary, it is again hardly surprising that advertised "Long lasting CFLs and LEDs" are not that long lasting at all, from ever more reviews and criticism arising: Not just because of the dubious lab specifications used (unrelated to real life use, see Ceolas.net site regarding CFL and LED specifications used) - but also out of necessity of manufacturers to make a profit, and a lack of competition from banned cheap lighting alternatives leaves the way open for a double whammy of expensive and shorter-lasting-than-supposed replacement products.

Thank you, politicians and bureaucrats.

How Regulations are Wrongly Justified

14 points, referenced:

Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.

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!
 

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.