Showing posts with label Manufacturer Lobbying. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Manufacturer Lobbying. Show all posts
Thursday, July 18, 2013
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
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Howard Brandston Appeal Letter
Letter from Howard Brandston 1 October 2012 to New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.
Reproduced by kind permission of the author.
Howard Brandston, as seen from previous posts and the resource links section of the blog, is an internationally highly regarded and experienced lighting designer.
He has as seen been directly involved in Congress US light bulb regulation discussion, as via his participation in several Senate hearings, including the last one on the topic in 2011.
Amidst passionate political debate, let’s not lose sight of the looming incandescent light bulb ban, a grave concern affecting every American’s health, well-being and freedom of choice, regardless of one’s party preference.
This ban is not the result of technological advancements, but instead is the careful orchestration of profit-seeking lamp manufacturers and uninformed ‘Green’ advocates.
The purported benefit of the bulb ban is energy savings – better for us, better for our environment. Nothing is farther from the truth: the incandescent ban is the best big business marketing scheme ever devised.
The truth is dating back to the 1980s when lamp manufacturers introduced residential Compact Flourescent Lamps (CFLs), consumers never really accepted them as demonstrated by poor sales and low corporate revenue. Quality of light; health, safety and environmental issues; shorter than reported life expectancy; poor fit with existing fixtures outline some CFL problems.
The truth is instead of responding to these important consumer issues, lamp manufacturers protected their CFL investment and used the influence and the dollars of their lighting lobbies to pressure the government to ban the competition -- the all-pervasive incandescent light bulb. Their accompanying marketing strategy was brilliant: join the global warming bandwagon.
The truth is lamp manufacturer and government propaganda and misinformation worked. In 2014, the incandescent light bulb will be relegated to the dustbin of history unless consumers really pressure legislators to repeal the ban.
Consumer pressure is working elsewhere around the world. Lighting designers, scientists, and everyday citizens are publicizing the consequences they have endured caused by the mandated ban. The truth is consequences far outweigh benefits. In the US, the amount of money the lobbies have lavished on politicians has sustained the planned ban to date. Only a groundswell of consumer revolt will restore common sense and protect our freedom to live our lives in safety.
Howard M. Brandston, FIES, Hon. FCIBSE & FSLL, FIALD
www.concerninglight.com
Howard Brandston is an internationally recognized expert on lighting for more than 50 years most well known for lighting the Statue of Liberty.
For more on Howard's writing on light bulb regulation issues,
see http://concerninglight.com/commentary.html
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
House passes Light Bulb Amendment to Bill
The funding block of the oversight of American federal light bulb regulations, due to expire Sep 30, has been covered in several posts on this blog.
The last post here also covers Texan Congressman Michael Burgess's reasoning for proposing, and seeking to extend, this amendment.
It was indeed voted through yesterday for another year by the House of Representatives.
However, presumably like the last amendment, the Senate will have input on this - though most likely they will simply let it pass, and for similar reasons...
Senate Democrat spokesmen like outgoing Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman have previously pointed out the small actual effects of the funding block, and it is true that major manufacturers and distributors are unlikely to want to take chances in skirting federal law on import and manufacture, and are likely to want to pursue the greater profits of alternative bulb sales anyway - after all, the manufacturers sought and welcomed the ban, on admitted profit motives (http://ceolas.net/#li1ax onwards).
Also, as in the EU, one can expect retailers and others to have extensively stocked up, which again delays any ban impact, since sales of existing stock is not banned.
However, when states like Texas and possibly soon South Carolina (see local US repeal ban bills, http://ceolas.net/#bills) pass local laws allowing local manufacture and sale, it may encourage smaller operations selling the easily locally made simple incandescents.
It also of course "sends a message" about the justification of the ban itself, ahead of the presidential and congress elections this fall.
A good summary post by Erika Johnsen at Hot Air, linking to various reports.
House votes, again,
to delay enforcement of traditional light bulb ban
Last night, the House approved [link to The Hill report] of two amendments that will further stay the enforcement of the infamously intrusive incandescent light-bulb ban.
In a voice vote, the House approved an amendment to the Energy and Water spending bill for 2013 that would prevent the Department of Energy from spending money to enforce a 2007 law that sets bulb efficiency standards. The law bans the sale of 100 watt incandescent bulbs and will ban the sale of 75 watt traditional bulbs in July 2013.
This year, like last year, the amendment was sponsored by Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), who said the federal government should not be in the business of requiring certain light bulbs to be used.
“We shouldn’t be making these decisions for the American people,” Burgess said on the House floor. Burgess added that his amendment was approved last year and signed into law by President Obama, after which the House quickly passed his amendment again.
I like that the House Republicans are sticking with the regulatory travesty that is the incandescent light bulb ban, the only problem being that just delaying enforcement of the ban, instead of actually repealing it, only creates more uncertainty for businesses. It’s the best they can do with the state of the legislative branch being what it is at the moment, but manufacturers have already started battening down the hatches in preparation of the ban and moving away from production of normal light bulbs. A mere short-term guarantee just isn’t going to do much for them. Bloomberg has more:
Even if the House language approved last night survives in the Democratic-led Senate, the impact for consumers probably will be limited because manufacturers such as Royal Philips Electronics NV (PHIA) and General Electric Co. (GE) have revamped manufacturing to comply with the law, making bulbs that use less electricity to generate the same amount of light. …
“The law couldn’t be enforced,” Burgess said of his amendment in an interview. “‘We don’t need no stinkin’ badges. We’re the energy police.’”
Blocking the Energy Department from enforcement might let unscrupulous foreign manufacturers push non-compliant products, including to bulk buyers such as builders. Those sales are difficult to track.
“Some in Congress are willing to put U.S. jobs at risk for political positioning,” said Joseph Higbee, a spokesman for the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, a Rosslyn, Virginia-based group. “This is an example of a few politicizing light bulbs at the risk of American workers and the economy.”
Democrats are trying to spin this as if Republicans are ignoring the effect on American jobs. They contend that the delay will allow Americans to purchase traditional light bulbs from foreign manufacturers instead of the American manufacturers who make the new energy efficient light bulbs, but let’s just knock that notion on the head right now.
Buying American, just for the sake of buying American, does not help to create jobs — free trade and buying goods from wherever they are produced most cheaply and efficiently leads to good-for-all economic growth that creates actual, productive jobs. If Democrats really cared for American jobs and the health of the overall economy, maybe they should stop sticking up for a law that forces people to buy certain goods that they wouldn’t be choosing to buy in the free market. (Really, now — “unscrupulous” foreign manufacturers? They’re just meeting an existing demand, for crying out loud.)
image dailyworldwidenews.com
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
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 
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
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
An earlier March 2011 review from Apfelkraut.orgPlanned 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.
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 …
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Research Report:
Mercury in Fluorescent Lighting
From Send Your Light Bulbs to Washington blog May 17
Continuing on with the recent excellent additions to Howard Brandston's website, http://www.concerninglight.com/commentary.html, it links to an extensive study (alt link) by Rik Gheysens about mercury on fluorescent lighting, the preliminary report now being available, it will have an eventual final version, meanwhile the author welcomes comments to it via the email in the document.
The latest update is available here: http://users.skynet.be/fc298377
Direct document link to the last version, at the time of writing.
It is much the same as on Howard's site, but the below extracts are from the that version:
CONTENTS
1. Impact of mercury exposure on human health
2. Mercury: demand and supply
3. Mercury in fluorescent lighting
4. Does mercury in lighting result in less mercury in the environment compared to traditional light bulbs?
5. UNEP and EU intertwined with private interests
6. Health problems during production phase, use and disposal of fluorescent lighting
7. Ethical consuming and freedom of choice
8. Conclusion
Summary (of each section)
1. Impact of mercury exposure on human health
It is an accepted fact that mercury and methyl mercury in particular are very dangerous to human health. An overview is given of the characteristics of mercury, the health effects and the origin of methyl mercury in fish.
2. Mercury: demand and supply
Some facts are summed up about the reduction of the global primary mercury production, the global consumption, the emission of mercury to the atmosphere, and the average emission in some countries. The chapter ends with a short discussion about actions which have been undertaken to reduce mercury emission in power plants.
3. Mercury in fluorescent lighting
We bring into focus the demand of mercury by the lighting sector. The directive 2002/95/EC has exempted the fluorescent lamps from the requirement for the substitution of mercury.
What is the amount of mercury in fluorescent lamps and in particularly in CFLs?
At this moment, no alternatives for fluorescent tubes and HID lamps are available. But CFLs can be very easily substituted. We ascertain that the most suitable alternative for the CFL is the halogen lamp and the incandescent lamp but in some countries the incandescent lamp has been banned.
4. Does mercury in lighting result in less mercury in the environment compared to traditional light bulbs?
We try to answer the question if the argumentation to justify CFLs in the U.S. and in EU-27 is valid.
We find that today, an average of mercury between 0.006 and 0.009 mg/kWh is emitted during the generation of electricity in EU-27 (instead of 0.016 mg/kWh) and about 0.009 or 0.010 mg/kWh in the U.S. (instead of 0.012 mg/kWh).
Comparing a clear incandescent bulb, a new halogen lamp and a CFL, we find that the new halogen lamp is the best choice and the CFL the worst choice. So, the CFL cannot be justified. Because of these findings, an immediate ban has to be ordered on CFLs. In regions with a low emission of mercury, the net result is that only CFLs are spreading mercury. In regions with a huge emission of mercury, other measures than the distribution of CFLs are needed to reduce the pollution.
5. UNEP and EU intertwined with private interests
UNEP has given undue preference to Philips Lighting and OSRAM AG through the en.lighten iniative. The partnership with UNEP is not only intended to promote CFLs over the whole world but also to develop a road-map for the global phase-out of incandescent bulbs. Under the pressure of CFL manufacturers, the U.S. and the E.U. took measures to ban incandescent lamps. The world has to be freed from the undue obtrusiveness with which some lighting manufacturers are spreading their CFLs. The lobby of the private industry in the decision making in the E.U. must urgently be restrained.
6. Health problems during production phase, use and disposal of fluorescent lighting
Serious health problems are recorded during the production phase of CFLs, in particularly in China, where most CFLs are produced. Research is going on to investigate if ultraviolet and electromagnetic radiation from CFLs is a risk factor for the aggravation of light-sensitive symptoms in some patients. Broken CFLs mean a danger to the health, especially for children.
The measures issued by the governments or institutions of different countries are not univocal.
Not recycled CFLs are a serious problem for the environment and for health.
7. Ethical consuming and freedom of choice
The consumer has the right to acquire the most appropriate product to meet his well-considered demands. The ban on incandescent lamps means a violation of the free market principles. Certain preferences cannot be fulfilled by CFLs.
The Cradle to Cradle principle suggests that every product should have a complete cycle mapped out for each component. This is not the case with CFLs, due to the fact that most of these lamps end up in a landfill and due to the losses during exploitation of mercury, production phase and breakage.
Ethical minded consumers don’t want to buy fluorescent lamps because these lamps do not comply with an ethical production, i.e. with a minimal harm to the natural environment.
This chapter ends with a small test of CFLs. The conclusion is that in the given circumstances, to buy a CFL is somehow to take part in a lottery.
8. Conclusion
The production of CFLs should be banned immediately. We demand an immediate lift of the ban on incandescent lamps and clear notices on the package about the content of mercury and about the dangers intrinsic to fluorescent tubes.
Each habitant should be able to receive data about the emission of fine particles, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury, etc. in his region. Especially in Europe, a lack of such information is ascertained.
In a nutshell
• Coal fired power plants are by far the largest source of mercury to air.
• A range of widely available, technical and economically feasible practices, technologies, and compliance strategies are available to power plants to meet the emission limits.
• A VITO-study concluded: "(…) even in the worst possible case that a CFL goes to the landfill, during its lifetime it will have saved more mercury emissions from electricity production in coal power plants (compared to the mercury emissions related to the conventional incandescent bulbs’ electricity need) than is contained in the CFL itself, so the overall mercury pollution balance will be positive." (VITO-report 2009)
This mantra, based on outdated figures, is still repeated without further research. Meanwhile, in any developed country or state, emission limits are valid. Nowadays in Europe and in the U.S., all base is lacking to justify the use of CFLs and to ban the incandescent light bulb.
• In other countries with a higher power plant mercury emission, it would witness of malicious pleasure to distribute mercury containing CFLs to tackle the problem of mercury pollution.
One has to deal with the problem of the power plant mercury emission, and one has not to add
a new problem. If one would fully consider the ‘way of mercury’, - the exploitation of mercury mines, the manufacturing and recycling of CFLs inclusive - , then one should discover how noxious this whole process is.
• U.S. EPA must stop to spread wrong information about the mercury pollution in landfills.
Their assertion that CFLs reduce the amount of mercury released in the environment is not correct.
The new halogen lamps and even the incandescent bulbs are better than CFLs, regarding the environmental impacts.
• The E.U. must stop to use the outdated number of mercury pollution by power plants.
With the correct number, they cannot prove that CFLs are better than the halogen and incandescent lamps. The ban on incandescent lamps has to be lifted!
It was a great mistake to design the mercury containing CFLs.
A well researched review,
with an interesting if rather extreme conclusion even for this SYLBTW blog taste ("the production of CFLs should be banned immediately"!).
But a welcome counter to all the usual defence arguments about "other mercury sources" etc being worse, which is always a weak justification at the best of times - to the extent mercury is a problem, wherever found, then 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Not even in Washington!
The whole document can be read in the frame below.
The author welcomes comments, as seen.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
US Government LED Prize:
Certain test reports not released...
As seen from the recent series of posts here about the new Philips LED bulb that won the American Government, L Prize (more), a particular source of interest was lighting engineer Philip Premysler's observations.
Following discrepancies he discovered in how the prize was awarded,
including deficiencies in the bulb itself, his further request for information has met with some resistance, as he allows me to make public... (his capitals, my added bold style highlights)
"The telltale sign of the Dept of Energy (DoE) having RIGGED the L-Prize contest is the DoE's refusal to release certain test reports on the L-Prize entry.
Several of test reports that are listed in the "Independent Data" column of the L Prize summary document were requested under the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA].
Based on the summary document we know these document would show failures of the L-Prize “winner” to meet the contest requirements.
The decision by the DoE to refuse to release the documents was appealed to the DoE’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) and the DoE was ordered to make a legal determination based on specific legal criteria as to whether the documents could be released
(see http://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/foia/FIA-11-0012.pdf)."
The mentioned test review summary document and appeal documents,
the test review report was as said previously discussed here.
"So far, the DoE has refused to carry out the OHA order. (Likely they see no way to avoid releasing the documents if they apply the OHA’s criteria)
Their tactic for stonewalling is absurd.
The DoE states that they expected the OHA to order a new search for documents and even though this did not happen and was not likely to happen they commenced a new search anyway, found some additional documents other than those requested and incurred some expenses. Then they took the position that unless payment for the new search was made by me, they would refuse to process the request. Thus far they have not responded to the OHA remand.
I should emphasize that there was no reason for the DoE to assume that the OHA would order a new search because the FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request and appeal concerned specific documents that were identified by file name. In order for the DoE to make its initial negative response to the FOIA request they would have had to have already located the documents in question."
Summarized...
"Regarding the FOIA appeal, as may expected the DoE is stonewalling. They have yet to abide by the remand from the Office of Hearings and Appeals. I may appeal but I don't know how long that would take. Hopefully congress takes up an investigation and obtains all the relevant documents. In the meantime there is the published test report from Philips own website and there is the test report from the SCE, which you did a nice job on reviewing an selecting quotes.
The way in which the DoE is stonewalling is somewhat "creative". They claim they incorrectly assumed the OHA would order an expanded document search and therefore went ahead and conducted a document search and incurred some expense which they want me to pay. Apparently it is their position that they will disregard the remand order from the OHA until I pay for the expanded search which nobody requested (not me or the OHA)."
Monday, May 7, 2012
The Dim World of Light Bulb Politics
From the Huffington Post today May 7, article by David Jenkins
The Dim World of Light Bulb Politics
In 2007, major lighting manufacturers worked with Congress to craft new energy efficiency standards for light bulbs.
They were worried that states would adopt 50 separate standards and they knew that a 40-year old technology existed to make better incandescent light bulbs -- ones that were 28 percent more efficient and emitted less waste heat.
Why didn't these manufacturers use this technology before? In their minds, there was no financially compelling reason to switch. Consumers were buying bulbs with the old technology.
When widespread concern about energy waste caused states to start passing light bulb efficiency standards, the manufacturers sought a uniform national standard and got it. The provision was not controversial. It passed with an overwhelming bi-partisan majority and was promptly signed into law by President George W. Bush.
The manufacturers then spent millions of dollars retooling their operations to produce the new, improved incandescent bulbs, which produce exactly the same lighting qualities as the old bulbs, look the same, dim the same, last longer, save energy, and provide a better value for consumers.
Sounds pretty good, huh? Thomas Edison would have been pleased.
It was viewed in a different light by those living in the alternate universe of libertarian radicalism, however. Last year, in advance of the January 2012 start date for standards to take effect, they spread the false rumor that the 100-watt incandescent bulb was being banned and that people would be forced to switch to compact fluorescent bulbs. They even snookered some reputable media outlets.
Four months after the deadline has come and gone, and the new incandescent bulbs are on the shelves at their local Home Depot, these light bulb cranks continue to spread lies about a supposed bulb ban. Some in Congress do so, even after manufacturers have shown them that the new incandescent bulbs are identical in form and function to the old bulbs. No squiggly tubes, no weird color hues, no dim start-up, no dimming problems, no mercury, same amount and quality of light, but using just 72 watts of electricity instead of 100.
These radicals have latched onto light bulb and appliance efficiency standards as a symbol of government overreach. They claim such standards limit consumer choice.
Really, this is the best example they can come up with? The light bulb standards are the same type of common-sense efficiency benchmarks President Ronald Reagan signed into law for refrigerators, fluorescent lighting ballasts, and other appliances in the 1980s. How many people are wandering around their local appliance dealer pining for inefficient, Jimmy Carter-era refrigerators?
Still, even as you read this, we have lawmakers like Congressman Michael Burgess (R-TX) and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) working to prohibit enforcing the law that established these lighting standards. They plan to offer amendments to upcoming appropriations bills that would do just that.
Apparently, Burgess, Enzi and others on this crusade are not concerned about the investments lighting manufacturers made in good faith over the past five years.
Does it matter to them that shady foreign manufacturers would exploit the loophole to flood the market with cheaply made, unreliable, energy-wasting bulbs?
Does it matter to them that doing favors for foreign fly-by-nights could result in fewer jobs for Americans who make components for the new bulbs?
Does it matter to them that shoddy foreign bulbs, which might cost 50 cents less than the high-quality American bulbs, would cost Americans more because of higher energy bills and shorter bulb life?
Perhaps their whacky Ayn Rand idolatry is more important to them than jobs, investments, and energy savings. In the name of libertarian dogma, they seek to chain Americans to inferior products and retard technological progress.
The real advance for freedom, prosperity, and consumer choice can be found in the innovative, solution-oriented actions of the major lighting manufacturers in 2007. By helping craft these new standards and getting better technology to the market, Americans can light their world for less money, improve our nation's energy position, and be better stewards of our precious natural resources.
We should dub the new, improved incandescent light bulbs "Freedom Bulbs" in honor of the entrepreneurial spirit and foresight that led to their development.
Yet the lighting manufacturers are not resting on their laurels. In a few years, the energy sipping, but costly, LED bulbs that are showing up on store shelves in increasing numbers will become much more affordable. These lights produce the same quality and amount of light as the old 100-watt bulbs but use less than 20 watts of electricity.
That is some serious, no-compromise, insurance against rising electricity costs.
It's practical conservatism at its best. As the great conservative author and theorist Russell Kirk once wrote: "There is nothing more conservative than conservation."
He was right. Conservation is smart, prudent and responsible. It safeguards the future of our children and grandchildren.
Kirk, whom Reagan referred to as "the prophet of American conservatism," also wisely pointed out that with freedom comes responsibility. Kirk said:
"Every right is married to a duty, every freedom owes a corresponding responsibility."
A radicalism that peddles freedom without responsibility and revels in the political promotion of carefree wastefulness is most certainly not conservative.
Of course, our government needs to be efficiently effective and we must prevent excessive bureaucracy and government overreach. Neither of those concerns is relevant, however, to common-sense energy efficiency standards, which drive necessary progress using the power of free markets.
Now that everyone can see that rumors of the incandescent bulb's demise were greatly exaggerated, it is time to let our elected officials know that dim-witted efforts to roll back or impede enforcement of the new lighting standards will carry a political price.
If our elected officials are willing to mislead the public and turn their backs on such easy energy savings, they are probably not capable of leading us to a brighter future.
Comment
Well he got the title right..
"The Dim World of Light Bulb Politics"!
This article is interesting in how it runs through the supposed advantages of regulations, and how manufacturers might "need them" compared to free market alternatives.
While the arguments are answered in the "Deception" rundown on this blog, an appropriate reply here:
1. About manufacturers:
Why did they welcome the regulations on simple incandescent bulbs?
Why would anyone welcome regulations on what they can or cannot make? ;-)
Of course, it's because of Big Profits from the ban of anyone else making the popular cheap patent-expired light bulbs, and the enforced replacement with their more profitable alternative offerings.
This is well documented by Michael Leahy and Howard Brandston in their 2011 e-book "I Light Bulb". Congress lighting consultant Brandston was there personally, in political meetings leading up to the 2007 legislation
(edited excerpts):
"The NEMA Lamp Subcommittee was composed of General Electric, Osram Sylvania, and Philips, the same industrial giants who formed the old Phoebus Cartel (limiting lightbulb lifespans) back in 1924....conducting its own research and internal hearings that culminated in a recommendation to ban the incandescent light bulb... When I asked NEMA for help in fighting the incandescent light ban, I was politely told that they could not be involved in any research program like that"
2. The supposition that manufacturers "won't make energy saving bulbs unless forced by regulation".
First of all, energy saving is only one aspect of what makes a "good" light bulb.
There are many others, and forcing energy saving mandates on a given product changes it's characteristics, whether Buildings, Cars, Washing Machines or Light Bulbs.
The touted 2012 Halogen type replacement incandescents are still different in running whiter and hotter, and are not popular either with politicians or consumers, in costing much more for marginal savings (no "Halogen" replacement programs, like with CFLs in California, Ohio, Washington etc).
Contrary to what the the article author says, those replacements, typicaly 20-22 lumen per Watt, will also be banned anyway in phase 2 of EISA after 2014, on the 45 lumen per Watt end regulation: http://ceolas.net/#li01inx
So yes it is a "ban", and effectively on incandescent technology for ordinary usage.
The major manufacturers who sought and welcomed the ban would be unlikely to improve incandescents anyway, given the more profitable alternatives.
CFLs, LEDs etc were invented in the presence - not the absence - of cheap incandescent competition.
Energy saving products that people want have always been made and sold - since energy saving is indeed a desirable quality.
"Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run?"
Long lasting expensive woollen coats, batteries (Energizer bunnies!), washing up liquids etc are all made, sold, and properly marketed, without the makers lobbying regulators for easier bans on cheap alternatives.
Besides, if bulbs really had to be targeted - they obviously don't - then helping new inventions to the market to increase competition (firstly),
or taxation-subsidies that taxed incandescents and helped lower the price on CFLs LEDs (secondly),
would equilibrate the market and keep choice - again without regulatory bans.
3. The overall issue is to Save Energy:
No-one welcomes the waste of energy.
However, the personal choice of a product to use is hardly a "waste" of energy (or electricity), compared to unncessarily leaving it on.
Light bulbs don't burn coal, and they don't realease any CO2 gas.
Power plants might - and might not.
Where there is a problem - Deal with the problem.
As for coal plants, they anyway effectively burn the same coal whether your bulb is on or off, given how slow base-loading coal plants that are calibrated for higher day use are hardly turned down at night.
As the referenced Dept of Energy's own stats and surveys show, only around 1% of grid electricity is saved from a switchover, and that is still not taking into account the higher lifecycle (manufacture, transport, recycling) energy use of CFLs and LEDs.
Yes, individual consumers can make savings in replacing some bulbs - and why not - that is a freedom of choice in terms of the different advantages that different bulbs have for different uses.
But society laws, even when seen necessary to save energy, should be based on society energy savings.
And for society, there are greater, more relevant, and more justifiable electricity savings from electricity generation, grid distribution, and alternative consumption based measures - than from worrying about what light bulb Johnny is using in his living room at home!
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The L Prize:
Official Version of the Testing Procedure
As previously covered, the Philips LED Prize bulb, its quality issues, and how Philips won the US Government prize for it:
The lobbying, the evading of rules, the poor quality of the bulb on testing - as referenced with competition rules, patents, lobbying finance records, the prize committee's own lab test document, etc...
Standing against that information,
the US Dept of Energy official site (lightingprize.org) - has a lot more about the evaluation procedure - including their video about the bulb testing:
The just released (April 2012) stress test report follows below.
Alternative link to this PDF document.
As seen, the lab involved was the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, as also covered in the mentioned complete post and test committee review therein.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Philips LED Bulb Prize Technical Review Document Copy
Post updated April 28
Regarding last post on the Philips prize committee technical review (the right side comments),
a copy of the document below.
As said earlier, it was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
See the original post about the L-Prize for a full rundown of the issues, including more about the testing procedure, the results, and the review comments as in the document copied above:
That post is also kept updated, for overview clarity, with the information here.
Some recent relevant comments on different posts relating to the testing, extra highlighting (capital letters in original) and direct linking added:
To address the points above as to whether the contest was rigged. If the L-Prize bulb clearly FAILED a technical test where there is a clear cut pass or fail outcome that any freshman engineering student can judge, but the technical review committee writes in PASS and explains, in SECRET, without publishing a rules update, that they are lowering the standard so that they can write in PASS, this is clear cut CORRUPTION.
The technical review committee sought to justify secretly altering the uniformity standard stating
“..however, independent data verifies that this distribution is actually much more uniform than a standard incandescent lamp …“
While there can be no justification for secretly lowering the standard to rigg the contest, astoundingly (or not) this statement is false.
Calculating the standard deviation for the L-Prize bulb tested by the DoE and a standard incandescent lamp, using data provided by the Department of Energy shows that L-Prize lamp tested by the DoE was actually less uniform.
See Light Distribution Analysis (alt link)
The production version of the L-Prize (which by the way appears to be a Chinese product) also does not meet the published L-Prize uniformity criteria of +/-10% of average in the zone 0 to 150 degrees.
See data on page 41 of usa.lighting.philips.com document
Also see: Lab plots of light distribution of Philips bulb (alt link)
The stated procedure for the contest was that if the entry failed a required test the entry would fail.
See flowchart on page 15 of L-Prize competition rules.
Southern California Edison (SCE) which was involved in field testing Philips L-Prize entry, decided to lab test 16 of the bulbs.
It turns out 1 of the 16 exhibited a failure mode in which the light turned red by the time it had 1502 hours of run time. This early failure casts doubt on the 20,000 hour (with 95% confidence) lifetime touted by the Department of Energy.
See link on (Emerging Technologies Coordinating Council) web page http://www.etcc-ca.com/component/content/article/48-Commercial/3044-l-prize-lab-evaluation which has link to report
Quoting from the mentioned Emerging Technologies Coordinating Council (ETCC) webpage
This independent lab assessment was initiated in support of both SCE’s L Prize field testing efforts, as well as its energy efficiency incentive/rebate programs.
SCE’s lab testing capabilities present an enormous resource in understanding and developing confidence in the performance of these units. A winning product stands to undergo considerable mileage in terms of usage/acceptance across the United States. As leaders in energy efficiency, it is important that California utilities stay active in monitoring/assessing such technologies.
Regarding the SCE report about the bulb (long pdf document), from the summary:
The technology shows promise in terms of meeting the efficiency and performance criteria set forth in the L Prize.
However, to better assess feasible implementation into incentive
programs, more investigation is recommended in three key areas:
- Lifetime Testing
o The variation of savings realized with these products throughout their lifetime is not well understood at this point.
Long lifetimes are one of the significant advantages of SSL technology, and should be better understood with this product application.
- Dimming capabilities/issues
o It is not currently known how these products perform when used with other dimmers.
o Their observed inability to toggle off with the selected ELV dimmer presents a large barrier, which needs to be overcome for successful implementation.
(When the ON/OFF function was toggled on the dimmer paired with this product, the product was not able to shut off. It encountered visible flickering at a dimly lit state in the OFF position.)
o The issue of green color shift at low dimming is a barrier to investigate/address for successful implementation
- Thermal effects on product performance
o These lamps are specified to use in dry locations, and not within totally enclosed fixtures. The effects of ambient temperatures/humidities on this technology’s performance and lifetime are not well understood at this point.
The conditions these lamps were subjected to in this lab assessment are within a narrow range, when taking into consideration the various climate zones/applications these general-purpose devices may see.
These key areas represent significant barriers,
to acceptance of this technology when compared with baseline CFLs and incandescents.
Further efforts are recommended to fully understand the benefits of SSL technology in this application, and ensure that product utility is not significantly impacted when encouraging customers to purchase products that are more efficient.
It is recommended that the results of the DOE’s evaluation of the first entry to the “60 Watt incandescent” category be closely monitored;
further understanding of this technology may be achieved through more collaboration with DOE testing, as DOE efforts are initiated/completed.
Comment
Regarding this bulb,
dimming is also criticized along with other issues in the committee technical review, above.
Regarding LED technology in general,
as this report also takes up, there are indeed several questionable issues relating to lifespan, enduring brightness, ambient temperature effects etc - apart from the light quality itself:
See the Ceolas website referenced rundown.
The "save energy/money in usage" push should not ignore such factors,
or for that matter the life cycle environmental impact, in terms of components in manufacture (more), energy/emissions in production and (overseas) transport, and environmental dumping when not recycled.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Update: More Questions about the Quality of the Philips LED bulb, and its Prize Award
Issues over the Philips LED Prize bulb was originally extensively covered in a March post, that has been comprehensively updated in the last couple of days.
A further post about Philips lobbying finance activities in the USA,
as per Senate and other records, also in relation to the LED bulb, was covered in the last post here.
But there is more...
As seen in the comments to the original post about it March post, the understandable point was raised that the prize testing committee had passed the bulb in all respects, so how could the
criticism be relevant.
All the referenced criticism relating to the bulb quality (and other issues about the bulb and the award) will not be repeated here - see previous posts.
But with respect to the lab testing,
in looking at the Test Review Comments themselves on the right hand side of their own document (click on it to enlarge), more discrepancies start to show up.
[ed- a copy of the document also in the post following this one]
While the bulb obviously passes the tests (or of course the prize could not be awarded!), it therefore does so with a lot of provisos, such that Philips own prototype testing are accepted when prize testing lab results show otherwise, and Philips promises about "criterions will be met in production lamp" are also accepted.
Moreover, prize testing lab names whose results conflict are rubbed out (at least 2 labs involved, possibly run by the DOE, judging by the article below).
Why not test results of publicly named labs, in a publicly awarded prize with public money?
As seen in other parts of the assessment the testing by a certain PNNL is not rubbed out. (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is one of the United States Department of Energy National Laboratories).
In one part, additional to the other criticism mentioned: "Testing conducted by PNNL with a wide variety of dimmers showed several issues with the submitted lamps".
The Washington Beacon (see previous posts) in a further article in April by Bill McMorris, has more on this and other previously mentioned issues. Notice that they also point out how the prize testing lab names were rubbed out. My highlighting again:
The Department of Energy awarded lighting giant Philips the $10 million L Prize despite the fact that the winning energy-efficient bulb failed to meet several contest criteria requirements, according to documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
Philips raised eyebrows when it debuted the winning bulb with a $50 price tag. That is far beyond the $22 cost recommended by the department, which is now working with utility companies to cut back on the upfront cost through rebates.
Department documents, however, cast doubt on whether the expensive LED bulb was even worthy of the prize.
Contest rules outlined by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act required the winning L Prize bulb to shine at 900 lumens. A department report on 200 bulbs tested at two different facilities showed that nearly 70 bulbs failed to meet that standard, including more than 60 percent of the bulbs tested at one of the labs.
“The integrating sphere test from the [lab name redacted] shows that only 5 of 100 samples tested were below 900 lumens, but the [lab name redacted] integrating sphere testing shows 38 samples that were over 900lm and 62 were under,” the report reads.
Despite Philips’ poor showing at the DOE lab tests, the department passed the bulb after receiving reassurance from the Dutch company.
“Philips data shows all tested lamps (2000) were above 900 lumens. Philips test and modeling data indicate…this criterion will be met in the production lamp,” the report continued.
[More such acceptances of Philips own lab results and promise for production lamp compliance can as said be seen directly on the Test Committee Review comments on the right side of their document report (click on it to enlarge)]
A department spokeswoman insisted that the bulbs met the requirements.
“The minimum output measured in this sample of 200 lamps was 873 lumens and the maximum was 967 lumens, a range consistent with normal manufacturing tolerances,” the spokeswoman said. “The average light output of the 200 samples tested was 910 lumens.”
One lighting expert, however, said the average is not a good indicator of LED performance.
“You have to be very careful in choosing LEDs because there is difficulty in uniformity,” the expert said. “Having that many bulbs fail is suspect, especially if you plan on taking these bulbs to the market.”
Philips spokeswoman Silvie Casanova said the L Prize bulb that will hit store shelves later this spring fulfills every L Prize requirement.
“I’m sure that in the test run, there might have been some that had some performance issues, but I’m sure the department is looking at a baseline of the bulbs overall performance,” she said. “It does meet the requirements; we’re going through Energy Star testing right now” that will verify the company data.
Contest rules mandated that an entrant that failed to meet basic standards would be “terminated” and forced to return to square one of the competition.
There is no indication that Philips’ entry was disqualified, however.
Scientists who developed rival bulbs were outraged when they heard that the department allowed Philips to move forward.
“We treated the standards as Gospel: you had to have 900 lumens, you had to have the right color, the right temperature, the right (light distribution),” said one engineer who worked on the Lighting Sciences Group’s L Prize design.
“We went through revision after revision because if you change the (brightness), the color could be wrong and we’d start over. If we had known we could have fudged the (brightness) then everything else becomes easy,” the engineer said.
In 2009, when other lighting companies were still at the design phase of the process, Philips submitted a 2,000-bulb sample to the department. The quick submission intimidated many others vying for the L Prize, according to multiple industry insiders.
“Not once did the DOE ever let anyone know about the testing results; there was no transparency,” another lighting expert said. “If they had made it known in 2010 that Philips didn’t pass the test, then other competitors would have proceeded forward. The inference was that they passed.”
The department closed the competition and awarded Philips the $10 million prize in August 2011.
The brightness test was not the only requirement that Philips may not have reached. Department notes also indicate that reviewers changed the light distribution criteria to Philips’ favor.
“Testing and modeling of prototype production lamps show the luminous intensity distribution falling below 10 percent from the mean near 150 degrees,” the report said. “However, the TSC finds the use of the 0-135 degree zone acceptable … this is different than the 0-150 zone specified.”
“The department cannot just change the rules on how they are going to test, especially if they don’t tell other competitors about the rule change,” said a second lighting insider. “Only Philips benefited from the criteria change.”
The contest has been marred by several controversies since it opened in 2008.
A House Appropriations Committee report issued in June slammed the department for announcing the $10 million prize without prior approval from Congress.
“The Committee strongly opposes the Department announcing funding opportunities when those funds have not yet been made available by Congress,” the report said. “In the case of the L Prize, the Department risks damaging its credibility.”
The warning was enough to worry higher-ups at Philips, which spent nearly $1.8 million lobbying Congress to fund the program.
The bulb’s $50 price tag also produced sticker shock among industry insiders. It is about double the cost of existing LED bulbs and about fifty times higher than the 60-watt incandescent bulb it was designed to replace.
“I’m impressed with the technology, you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who’s not,” the former LSG engineer said. “But we were going for a $22 bulb, forget rebates, and Philips missed it by a mile.”
The L Prize winner is expected to last 25,000 hours and save consumers $160 over the lifetime of the bulb compared to 60-watt incandescent bulbs, which were outlawed by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA).
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said the competition helped move LED technology forward by providing companies with incentives to make energy efficient bulbs.
“The idea of that light bulb contest was to provide for a goal going further down to get a light bulb that eventually, Americans can afford,” he told Congress in March.
The former LSG executive is not convinced.
“Letting (the bulb) come out that expensive, I think it set the market back … people are looking for a return on investment and this just tells them they can’t afford any LED bulbs,” he said. “I can’t blame the U.S. citizens for saying, ‘my God, the government is wasting our money.’”
In March, DOE opened the second round of the L Prize competition, which will aim to replace the existing halogen floodlight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)