Kevan Shaw Report: November 25 EU Consultation Forum

Regarding the EU Consultation Forum on domestic lighting November 25 meeting in Brussels
A report was posted here November 26.

Reproduced here:

Concerning the EU (European Commission) Light Bulb Review and their proposal to alter the regulations as laid out in detail previously:

Yesterday saw the previously mentioned meeting in Brussels of the Consultation Forum involving the Commission, national energy representatives and a few lighting "stakeholder" delegates.
I will expand on anything arising out of this: Suffice to say that while LightingEurope (representing Philips, Osram, GE and other major manufacturers, pre-meeting official statement of their position) and a few other lighting representatives were for the continuation of halogens without time limit, most of the energy agency type people predictably wanted to keep the 2016 ban, with some national representatives (eg Germany, Austria and Italy) wanting at least a delay, in that sense siding with the Commission 2 year delay proposal.
As this was just a consultation, decisions will take some time yet. Final decision on all aspects of the regulation review will be made by April 2014.

The most surprising aspect of the meeting was the focus on clamping down on "rough service" type industrial bulb sales to ordinary consumers - EU light bulb sales inspectors will likely be authorised to patrol the sale outlets of member nations, as already demanded by Energy Commissioner Oettinger for his native Germany. The idea therefore already has strong backing from the boss - and this time nearly all are for it, including the major manufacturers, as a lot of those bulbs are cheap Chinese imports. Thereby also "useful EU job creation" achieved. General applause.
What, the consumer? When were consumers ever important?!


#   #   #


Award winning (Lux UK Designer of the Year) Kevan Shaw of SavetheBulb.org has published a fuller analysis of the meeting and future prospects... The Latest from Europe

Extracts, my highlighting:

The Latest from Europe

Review of Ecodesign regulation 244/2009 stage 6

The Consultation meeting that took place in Brussels on 25 November revealed clearly that the EcoDesign process, particularly for lighting products is now only a political action.

In the meeting the majority of the national representatives spoke against delay or removal of the ban, not for substantial reasons of energy savings but because it might be seen as a precedent for delays or revisions for other products in the EcoDesign system.
There was also considerable support not to look at this issue in isolation but conflate it with the omnibus review of the regulation next year to save these civil servants from having to attend any more meetings where they are clearly completely out of their depth on fundamentals of the technologies being discussed.

The gloves are also off the conceit that these regulations are “Technology Neutral”.
Clear statements were made that funding would be provided for SSL but not other research.
[this was also seen in the circulated Commission proposal leading up to the meeting]

The UK representative claimed that the statements in lighting industry press clearly showed that SSL was the "only future for lighting". This obvious gullibility to marketing messages is truly scary in the context of pan European regulations that will, in effect kill off the only remaining bulk lamp manufacturing in Europe, which is tungsten halogen.

There is also seemingly no need to prove that the existing regulation has been effective in its core purpose of saving energy. The argument here is that energy use may have gone up despite the regulations but if the regulations had not been in place the increase would have been far worse!.....It was pointed out that the regulation has been very effective in bringing to the public’s attention that "something was being done" about energy use in Europe.

As for any negative impact on consumers, these are brushed under the carpet of savings on energy bills.
The unrealistic life in service expectations of extortionately priced SSL lamps, again largely statistical rather than actual, feed this argument.
Health concerns? Not the concern of this process SCENHIR deals with that.
Product safety? Again not a concern of this process. In the last year there have been 6 recalls of LED replacement lamps that I am aware of. These have been for life safety issues, touchable parts of the lamps becoming live to mains electricity. Throughout my long career in lighting I can only remember one recall of an incandescent lamp and that was because some shattered when they failed at end of a full service life.

There was some indication of the expectations of the omnibus review.
Spearheaded by Sweden and vociferously supported by CLASP the umbrella research organisation funded by the green pressure groups including WWF, Greenpeace etc, the proposal is that only A class lamps should be available in the market by 2020 if not sooner! ....Even SSL will not be able to deliver the warm colour appearance good colour rendering light that we are used to at the levels of “efficiency” demanded.
The near future looks like becoming cold and dead looking place.

Comment

Excellent if a little depressing!

The declared position of the main lighting manufacturers is as seen against the energy agency type people, but clearly
their worry of losing profit is not the same as when cheap simple incandescents were legal.
It would rather seem to be a marketing exercise for manufacturers to support the more expensive halogens, also presumably having more of an "ear to the ground" of what consumers want - compared to the civil servants and ideological fanatics as per the above. But manufacturers also know full well that they can simply point a finger at the Commission for any unpopular decision made (and in addition can then claim to have "tried on behalf of consumers to save the halogens"). Maybe that's their game all along - they know full well the position of agencies and Commission, and at the end of the day can simply count the profit - and reap all the subsidies - pertaining to LED manufacture and sales.
That leaves naive people like me thinking that manufacturers, for once, might have been concerned about people's choices without wholly regard to profit.
But, to repeat, manufacturers can and arguably should lobby for profitable decisions on behalf of their shareholders.
The problem, as always, is the extent that the Commission only listens to them, or indeed the national agency types or environmental pressure groups - which brings us back to the democratic acceptance of other views, and the various comments by other groups and individuals as highlighted here in recent days.


There is a further aspect to the review democracy, as highlighted by these type of meetings:
Not just who is allowed to attend, and not just that others are not heard (file your opinion in the waste paper bin/trash can), but of knowing who was there in the first place.

Who sits on the "Commission Ecodesign Committee", that pours out legislative initiatives on everything from light bulbs to vacuum cleaners to TV sets, which will apply to the EU?
Nobody knows - Nobody is allowed to know.
By research reports and other roundabout ways (eg who sits on the DG Energy C3 Committee on Energy Efficient Products) one gets to know some likely names on the Commission side - but that's it.
They don't even seem to have a secretariat. At most they have an email address type "tren-ecodesign@ec.europa.eu" but they never reply.
You might as well be dealing with the Cosa Nostra.

Much the same with these Consultation Forums.
Again, by various reports one finds out some likely representatives.
The Commission can rightly say that it's up to National Governments, Trade Organisations and Energy Saving Associations to decide who they want to send to represent them.
But that does not excuse saying afterwards who attended - after all, they have a monitored, named guest list of all who attended.
It's not as if it was the Ku Klux Klan attendance list. Presumably there is no shame/reluctance in name revelation.

The point is this: The Commission has sole rights to initiate legislation in the EU - presumably those selectively invited are invited to give valued input into this, and presumably they would not attend otherwise.
They should therefore stand by what they say - openly.
It's not good enough to say "by contacting the organisations concerned, they may say who was sent".
No real minutes are revealed (see the summary type below), no real information about what was discussed or who said what.

That's not all.
In any voting procedure, only the overall result is given. Not even the names of countries/organisations (as applicable) voting for/against, let alone reprentatives themselves.

Compare with equivalent launching of consultative forums or hearings in say the USA, or in individual European countries at least of the Western democratic tradition.
I have covered US Senate Hearings, similar to the EU Consultation Forum in having invited representative participation - that's even televised (C-Span) or retrievable by video. Video!!!
If any EU Commission hearing even had summary minutes released by someone, he or she would probably be crucified within minutes up on the Berlaymont.


The following shows replies I recently received looking for information.

They suggest looking at vacuum cleaner legislation as an example (this was before the light bulb review).
Vacuum cleaners of course will also soon be limited in energy use, so expect to spend twice as long cleaning up and use the same energy anyway.

Members of the Regulatory Committee are representatives of Member
States of the European Union (EU). A list of the persons who
participated in a particular meeting is not published on the EU’s
‘EUROPA’ web portal.

You may want to contact directly the Permanent Representations of the
Member States to enquire about whether the names of delegates in a
particular meeting are available. You can find the relevant contact
details on the EU’s ‘whoiswho’ portal at the following URL:
http://europa.eu/whoiswho/public/index.cfm?fuseaction=idea.hierarchy&nodeID=3780&lang=en

Furthermore, you might be interested to know that by consulting a
Summary Record of one of the Ecodesign regulatory Committee, you can
find at the end of the document the Ministry/Department/Agency which
represented the Member State in that particular Committee meeting
[Ecodesign Committee has the reference: C07900]. An example is the
meeting of 27/02/2013 on vacuum cleaners:
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regcomitology/index.cfm?do=search.documentdetail&F8O7DquaYsFIjeSNfyvxNCwAqN39eC+0fCcDkqDDB/sxdbQ+AI/X9VTTMRqv00VG

We hope you find this information useful. Please contact us again if
you have other questions.

PDF documents below, in case not seen:
Document 1
A typical Ecodesign meeting's summary report and (as here) a brief voting record

Document 2
A list of typical national ministries and agencies represented (anonymously)











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.
 

In Candescent We Trust!

Turkey leaders say: "Incandescent Bulbs Rule!"






"These truths we hold to be self evident:
That all bulbs are created equal, but that some bulbs are more equal than others!"






"A big country needs a bright bulb"






Translation: "Towards a brighter future"






Flying the Flag For Brussels? "Only with our bulbs!"

Philips Get Record Profits from Expensive Light Bulb Sales and Subsidies

Philips lighting profits just announced:
"We must be doing something right" in the words of Philips CEO Frans van Houten.
Sure, Frans - your company is doing the right thing, making sure that the cheap popular competition gets banned and that worldwide switchover subsidies are continued ;-)

ABC news:
Philips Winning Market Share in Lighting

Bloomberg:
Philips Profit Beats Estimates as Revamp Boosts Lighting (includes video interview)

...and similar from other news sources 21-22 October

Osram, the world's second largest light bulb maker are hardly unhappy either:
"Osram AG, the German lightbulb maker spun off by Siemens in July, gained as much as 3 percent, the most in two months, to 37 euros".


Main news extracts:

Chief Executive Officer Frans Van Houten is expanding more profitable businesses such as LED lighting....demand for LED lighting bulbs boosted profitability....earnings rose 33 percent to 634 million euros ($867 million)....the stock gained as much as 5.2 percent...

While presenting third quarter earnings on a conference call Monday, Frans van Houten did not give a specific figure on the company's global market share. But the report showed LED lighting sales grew by 33 percent from a year ago in the three months through September. They accounted for 30 percent of the 2.08 billion euros ($2.85 billion) in lighting sales Philips had in the quarter....the strong LED sales and lower restructuring charges led to a 140 million euro profit, from a 14 million loss in the same period a year ago...
"We must be doing something right" he said.

"non-sense and complexity?"


 

"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
 

Good Greek Philosophy

 
Having recently seen contributors from around the globe on the light bulb ban, another one, from Greece.

Antonis Christofides, is a developer and system administrator at the Department of Water Resources, School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens (NTUA).
He has also written extensively on climate change, questioning the current man-made supposition. Well worth reading.

Here the focus will be on his paper about the irrelevance of banning bulbs
to save energy for society, or indeed for any other reason.
Source, wider format, same content: http://itia.ntua.gr/antonis/environment/on-banning-the-bulb






Comment

Regarding the lack of energy savings for society, the author makes points familiar to readers of this blog:
See the Deception rundown, energy and coal sections, and the more extensive sections on the lack of society energy or power plant savings on the Ceolas.net site.

What is said about CFLs in the text is usually applicable to LEDs as well.


He makes the good point that any impressive sounding "save 80% energy using CFLs" is part of a very small energy use in the first place, such that the less impressive sounding "save 20% fuel by switching to a small car" is a lot more meaningful in real terms...

Why, then, don't we ban large cars? If people are entitled to drive a car for fun, or to go to the cinema, or to have a large TV, or to choose the temperature they want their home to have, or to fly business class, then why take away my freedom to choose the light that I want? Why force me use a lamp that produces a strange spectrum rather than the pure light of the bulb?

He also makes the good point that the (generously) 1% or so of total energy saved, as also seen from other data in the above references, would not mean "the saving of power plants" as global energy consumption is rising anyway... continuing

We want not only to encourage, but to force people throw away the light bulb, a simple device consisting of harmless materials, that could easily exist 200 years from now no matter what happens at technology and civilization, and replace it with a complicated system with toxic content, that cannot be dimmed with traditional dimmers, and that takes some time to reach its luminosity and is therefore inappropriate for some applications such as corridors and staircases, where you need the light immediately but only for a few seconds.

After noting that cheaper energy use means likely means greater use (not least if, in addition, a greater quantity of the dim bulbs have to be used as well), continuing on a philosophical note....

We use more and more light...
Unfortunately, it is not only the night sky that we are missing, but the beauty of the night itself. That we like darkness is obvious by the fact that, if the light of a street lamp gets too much into our room, we close our window blinds in order to sleep; that we like to go to dimly lit restaurants and bars; and that we love the dim light of candles and fireplaces. And yet the tendency today is to flood our cities with artificial light and eliminate darkness altogether.

He is also perceptive on the profits issue...
making points I have not seen elsewhere.

Certainly profit is one of the driving forces behind the ban.
It is hard for me to believe that the marketing campaign by Siemens is because of their determination to save the environment.

I can make some guesses about why CFLs are profitable for large lamp manufacturers.

First, they are way more expensive. They appear cheap to you because they are subsidized.

My second suspicion is that while small manufacturers have the technology to make incandescent lamps, and therefore compete with large manufacturers, they probably can't make CFLs. Therefore, these guys will likely go out of business and the large manufacturers will get their customers.

My third suspicion is patents. CFLs have about 20 years in the market. This means that the first patents are expiring. But 20 years ago they were much worse than today; they produced very bad light, and they were huge in size. Clearly there have been many developments. Probably the newest patents are no more than 5 years old, which means they will last for at least another 15 years. This means that any small manufacturers who make CFLs will have to pay patent fees to the large manufacturers, who own the patents [another reason they may go out of business].

If someone profits, someone else loses.
And the one who loses is usually you.
In our case, the small manufacturers also lose.
But the result can be a state-enabled cartel of manufacturers: the state has granted these patents, and the state has decided on the ban. Therefore the state enables the cartel. Cartels raise prices. Whether you can feel the higher price when you buy the CFLs, or whether it is included in your taxes in the form of subsidy for CFLs, you are certainly paying more.

But I don't think that profit can explain everything.
I think that the manufacturers, at first, used good marketing, like the alleged 80% savings, to convince consumers to buy the product, and then the environmentalists took it differently, and then the manufacturers saw the opportunity and jumped on.
Huge momentum was created when the manufacturers built upon the environmentalists who built upon the manufacturers, resulting in mass paranoia.

All of us, the wealthy, the poor, the environmentally sensitive, the politicians, are busy buying and banning CFLs, thinking, because of the 80% hype, that we achieve something, when in fact we achieve barely 1%, altogether in global hysteria.

 

BULB Fiction Film

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

This first video nicely introduces and summarizes the film.

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






The full 1 1/2 hour video below.

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

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








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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Christoph Mayr, September 2011

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

"All the lads" behind the two ventures

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

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

A Dutch View: "The Unholy Alliance between Philips and the Greens"

Updated August 1

Having covered South African and Hong Kong criticism of the ban and of the replacement bulbs, it is worth remembering that there have been similar good articles originating in the EU.
Naturally, most English language articles have a UK source, but some others have appeared that don't need translation tools (or manual work!).
This article by Dutch researchers has been mentioned in a previous post, but deserves its own.
Written in 2010, it remains valid today.

From University of Colorado Professor Roger Pielke Sr Climate Science Site:
Both Professor Roger Pielke Sr and Professor Roger Pielke Jr (blog) are something as unusual as institutional, renowned climate scientists that are not afraid to make their own judgements on climate change.
Note how criticism is otherwise something such scientists tend to do once they leave office!
(and - whatever the rights and wrongs - the notion that "most scientists agree with current climate change policies" should be taken with that knowledge, that few would go against established governmental and institutional opinion anyway, for fear of not receiving continued funding etc)

The below article post has this source.


About the authors

Henk Tennekes is an aeronautical engineer. From 1965 to 1977 he was a professor of Aerospace Engineering at Penn State. He is co-author of A First Course in Turbulence (MIT Press, 1972 – still in print) and author of The Simple Science of Flight, recently (2009) released revised and expanded.


Joost van Kasteren [website] is a senior writer on technology and science in Holland, having also been a science journal editor.
He covers energy, housing, water management, agriculture, food technology, innovation, science policy, and related issues.

Typically straight-talking Dutchmen, they don't spare the rhetoric as they conclude the article...

In 2006, Dutch legislators caved in under the combined lobbying pressure by Philips and Greenpeace. A parliamentary majority in The Hague embraced the idea of banning incandescent bulbs and ordered the Dutch Environment Minister, Jacqueline Cramer, to lobby for an extension of the ban to all states in the European Union.

That task proved simple enough.
Top politicians in Europe, Germany’s Angela Merkel up front, deeply impressed by Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, were only too eager to project an image of strength and will power concerning imagined threats to the planet. ”Save the Earth, ban the bulb” was an effective campaign strategy.

To make a long story short, it took less than one year to issue a binding European Union Edict ordering the phasing out of incandescent bulbs, starting with a ban on bulbs of 100 watts and more effective March 1, 2009, and leading to a complete ban of all incandescent lighting on September 1, 2012.

The spin doctors at Philips headquarters have got it made.
And if this scam backfires on them in consumer protests all over Europe, they can cover their backsides by claiming that politicians and the green movement are responsible, not they.
Backfire it will. There exist no decent alternatives to incandescent light. None.

The history of the EU ban is extensively covered with documentation and communication copies on the Ceolas site, here: http://ceolas.net/#euban.





 

And a Critical View from Hong Kong...

 
Having just considered a South African criticism of what is going on, consider another good article, this time from Hong Kong, again highlighting the problems of fluorescent or LED bulb replacements, as well as the questionable need and legitimacy of the product regulation itself.

It comes from Dr Robert Hanson:

Dr Hanson holds a PhD in the Built Environment from The Bartlett University College London. He worked in the energy industry in England where he was involved in calculating energy prices and setting tariff s under both competitive and nationalized conditions.

From the Capitalism.HK magazine.
Embedded article below: source.





 

An Enlightened View from South Africa

Updated July 27

Regarding the last post here "New study on CFL UV Radiation", an interesting South African article putting it in a greater perspective.

As the article says, South Africa, and indeed all the other BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) have recently announced incandescent light bulb bans or "phase-outs", as have many smaller developing countries.
The United Nations (UNEP) switchover policy supported by the World Bank and other big sponsors is playing a part in this, a policy pushed at the recent RIO environmental summit also by General Secretary Ban-Ki Moon himself... I will do a post on this later.
The UNEP en.lighten initiative itself, and how Philips and Osram benefit from offloading otherwise unwanted bulbs, has been covered in an earlier post "Philips, Osram, the UN and the World Bank: How we will en.lighten the World in 2012".

The author Ivo Vegter, as the blurb says, is no stranger to controversy - but hardly controversial what he says here - at least for supporters of this blog!
Embedded Daily Maverick article source here.
His own website: ivo.co.za
Notice the book coming out in September... might rustle a few feathers alright!

My book, which has kept be very occupied in recent months, is at the printers. In September 2012, Zebra Press, an imprint of Random House Struik, will inflict upon an unsuspecting world “Extreme Environment”.
It documents how environmental exaggeration harms emerging economies like South Africa, and I expect it will result in a few entertaining debates...

 

Update on Rik Gheysens CFL study

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




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

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

May 2012


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

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

Some conclusions are:

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

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

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

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

The results are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Comment (as in original post)

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

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

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