// Regular update posts in this blog, search on "heat balls".
At time of this edit, last update February 2012 //
Update for December 2011:
They have for the last months been considering an appeal in a higher court and how to go about it.
Meanwhile, in September they tried to have the Heatballs sold in Switzerland (outside the EU) but in October this got a definite no from the Energy ministry official responsible for Energy Efficiency legislation.
Update 27 July:
As expected, the decision yesterday (26th July) was that the "heat balls" can not be allowed, in also being a source of light as banned by specifications throughout the European Union (the name "heat balls", also using English in Germany, was presumably to take away from the light "bulb" idea).
More here.
The case was not altogether clear however: So-called "rough service lamps" as used in mines and other such locations are also incandescent lighting albeit not originally meant for ordinary consumers, and there are other exemptions as for small refrigerator lamps and the like.
The issue therefore turns around lighting used as GLS (general service lighting) in ordinary ceiling fittings etc.
The prospect of, in practice, identical general service lighting being continued was obviously too much: there might have been (= might be) more chance of success if the light bulbs had a specific screw-in fitting for a lamp with say a reflector in it to "beam the heat".
Of course, enterprising (and determined) people would then put such fittings also in other lamps, but that is another matter...
Siegfried Rotthäuser and friends in Germany have imaginatively tried to get round the European ban on regular simple incandescent bulbs by marketing them as "Heat Balls" (more).
This is a sop to the frequent ban defence relating to the fact that incandescent light bulbs give out over 90% of their electrical energy they use as heat (nevertheless being much easier to manufacture, when great brightness is required, compared to CFLs or, even more so, compared to LEDs).
The case has gone to the courts for decision, expected 26 July 2011, see announcement (pdf, in German)
Comment
Interesting legal argumentation might be expected in court...
a heat ball or rather "heat bulb" market idea to be followed in the USA and elsewhere?
As for light bulb heat "waste", it is often conveniently forgotten that CFLs and LEDs also convert most of their energy use to heat, although the heat is internalized more - in the case of CFLs leading to a recognized fire risk.
More on incandescent light bulb heat, and it's possible benefit here (http://ceolas.net/#li6x)
(not forgetting that most CFL and LED energy is released as heat too.. http://ceolas.net/#li6x except that it's internalized to give the confirmed CFL fire risk)
2. Promote...
Fox News have fun with CFLs
(Update, 2013 review of the blog posts: It was as seen taken off Youtube, I believe it was a Hazmat spoof, a sketch calling an environmental cleanup team into the TV studio because they broke a mercury containing CFL. All about broken CFLs and mercury here: http://ceolas.net/#li191x)
CBC (Canada) have less fun with CFLs
(CBC, Canada's main broadcating corporation, have a closer look at CFL radiation, the mentioned research is further covered here: http://ceolas.net/#li18x)
As does an American TV journalist...
....A TV journalist tried unsuccessfully last week to contact EPA, before cleaning up a broken CFL bulb himself in this video (MRCTV)
3. Get...?
Hey Man.. Gotta Light?!
(not forgetting that in post-ban Europe, proposed fines and/or prison sentence from distributing illegal light bulbs, eg 5000 euros 3 months prison first offence, 50 000 euros 6 months prison second offence, is actually worse than illegal drug distribution in some countries)
Can you really buy a flat screen TV with the money you supposedly save with CFL light bulbs?
The Department of Energy is sponsoring Ad Council ads to promote CFL light bulbs. Coming on the heels of House Republican efforts to repeal the looming incandescent bulb ban, one of the ads features a couple throwing over a cliff stuff (like a flat screen TV) that they allegedly could have bought with the money saved by CFLs.
But as pointed out by Energy and Environment News, DOE says upgrading 15 traditional incandescent bulbs to efficient options could save households about $50 a year in energy costs.
I don’t know whether President Obama or Nobel Prize-winning Energy Secretary Steven Chu have been to a store recently but $50 won’t buy too many TVs — or much else of significance.
Moreover, the energy savings of CFLs have been significantly exaggerated as California utility PG&E recently learned.
Steve Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and GreenHellBlog.com, and is the author of Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them.
Comment
The Campaign in turn links to Energysavers.Gov at the Department of Energy (DOE):
Certainly it can obviously be good for both country and individual to save energy, as the Ceolas.net website with this blog makes a point of covering.
However, as the motto here says, light bulb regulation is not a good way to do it...
and the campaigns in that regard do not tell the whole truth - and that is as seen using the DOE's own data, and the information in the 2007 Energy Act itself
Frying a Chicken using Incandescents!
[So incandescents are really great when it's cold, as it often is when it's dark?! Regarding conflicting information, consider Departmental different statements that in winter "incandescent heat effect is negligible" while in summer "incandescent heat effect is considerable" (to affect air conditioning) http://ceolas.net/#li6x Ah yes...]
From the Referred Website...
[Note the caption, and website linked, that the bulbs meet the 2012-2014 standard... like...let's Keep Very Quiet about them not meeting the standard that follows!]
Nice of the US Government to finance sales campaigns that manufacturers should be taking care of themselves.... (Do Energizer battery sales people - given their famous commercials regarding "expensive to buy but cheap in the long run" - say "Please Energy Dept, can you Finance our Bunny as well, on behalf of US taxpayers"?! which might, say, reduce the number of dumped batteries, and if that logic is refuted, the same applies to any electrical product or car manufacturer etc, and energy saving is of course not the only positive quality a product can have anyway) RE "upgrading 15 traditional incandescent bulbs to efficient options could save households about $50 a year in energy costs." There's a lot of "could" and "about" and "typically" in Departmental statements (see above picture caption and its website), sometimes necessary, sometimes not, no doubt they have their legal people looking over what they say. On the language side, we not only have the beauty of calling fluorescent bulbs energy saving light bulbs - true or not, when did you last buy an incandescent bulb saying "Can you give me that Energy Wasting Light Bulb please?" - but also, as here, the use of efficiency as always meaning energy efficiency - a performant efficient fast car might not be energy efficient, a constructionally simple incandescent light bulb (which is much easier to make to give bright 100W+ equivalent light) might not be energy efficient, and so on. Add to that in a wider sense that emission of the naturally occuring CO2 gas is called pollution (remembering that "too much" love and "too much" peace is bad for the planet too, by definition), necessitating clean energy that might have other environmental problems, or that global warming is handily renamed climate change, despite the heat effect still being considered the predominant problem, and so on, such terms being happily swallowed by the reporting media. And those savings? 1. There are many reasons, too many to cite here, why the savings don't hold either for society or for consumers, also using DOE's own statistics. Summary http://ceolas.net/#li171x 2. They always take the most commonly used lights and multiply accordingly. American 45-bulb household has many other lights Less usage, less savings, apart from breakage, losses etc (http://ceolas.net/#li13x onwards) 3. Not only have to pay more for the light bulbs as an initial cost but also being being forced to pay for them, via taxpayer CFL programs 4. Little Money savings for consumers as a whole, regardless of energy savings: Because electricity companies are being subsidised (again by consumers as taxpayers) or allowed to directly raise Bill rates, to compensate for any reduced electricity use, as already seen both federally and in California, Ohio etc, and before them in the UK and other European countries (as referenced, http://ceolas.net/#californiacfl) Saving money isn't the only reason to choose anything anyway, there are of course all the light quality and other issues too.
On the 15th of July, the amendment AO75 (H.Amdt. 678) by Rep. Michael Burgess to Energy Bill H.R.2354 of July 14 2011, was successfully passed in a vote on the floor of the House.
The amendment cuts the funds needed next year to implement and monitor American federal light bulb regulation starting January 2012, which would have seen regular 100 Watt bulbs removed from sale. It is therefore temporary in nature, and does not permanently set back the lighting regulations.
The Energy Bill now passes to the Senate:
Bill content and progress (Govtrack link)
Comment
Following the earlier reported failure to achieve a 2/3 majority in the House,
and rather than seek a simple majority to pass a bill to the Senate unlikely to get sufficient backing (or to be signed by President Obama):
Rep. Michael Burgess, who had earlier introduced his own specific bill regarding mercury-containing lamps and also collaborated with Rep. Burton on the repeal bill, took the interesting step of seeking to amend the H.R.2354 2012 Water and Energy Appropriations Bill instead. This bill finances subsidies wanted also by Democrats, albeit with cuts in these Budget-conscious times, so that such a bill is more likely to pass in the Senate.
Moreover, if the Senate starts tinkering with the small part relating to light bulbs, it lays them open to the same criticism previously levelled at those looking for a repeal of the ban, namely of petty politics in the face of Bigger National Issues
(in context, one might say that it was the original decision to ban some light bulbs which was the petty decision, firstly because of the much more relevant alternative ways to save energy, if required, and secondly in the sense that most people spend at least half of their lives under artificial lighting, and might be allowed a say in the matter)
Taking a wider context,
in light of the current Budget difficulties in the USA, California, and other entities worldwide, their cash-strapped governments that ban Cars, Buildings and Electrical Products based on energy use should seriously consider the taxation alternative:
This would give a large direct Government income that also could help finance cheaper energy saving alternatives, so that consumers both keep choice and are not just hit by taxes.
As seen on the New Electric Politics companion site the need to target products based on energy use can seriously be questioned, and if so should first consider stimulated market competition, but taxation is still preferable to regulations - also for Governments who favor them today.
The issue is covered on that website, and will also be covered here in a following post.
