Canada Delay to 2014 - It's Official

 
The stated reason by the Canadian government for the delay

"Delaying the date for compliance with Canada’s efficiency standards for general service lighting for 100/75/60/40W light bulbs (general service lamps) is required in order to strengthen communication activities, to allow for technological innovations and to consider the concerns expressed about the availability of compliant technologies and perceived health and mercury issues, including safe disposal for compact fluorescent lamps"

...and somewhat ironically the "safe disposal for compact fluorescent lamps"
is now of increasing concern in post-ban EU, as covered in this post about the "acute crisis" statement of the Swedish environment minister.


Also,
The British Columbia Government seems to be halting any further implementation of the already existing ban in that state.
See the post
( http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/12/local-bc-ban-in-canada-on-hold.html )


_________________________________________


The Canadian Government have updated their websites regarding the delay to implementation of light bulb energy efficiency regulations:
http://oee.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/regulations/product/general-service-lamps.cfm

Delay proposal, details (spring 2011):
http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2011/2011-04-16/html/reg1-eng.html


Comment
While welcome news,
light bulb regulations are particularly inappropriate for Canada, for the several reasons listed here, apart from all the general reasons covered on that site, and in this blog.

The further interesting point is how this may or may not affect both local (British Columbia) and American or other jurisdictional legislation, also because of cross-border trade.

Already the Conservatives in British Columbia are promising a delay or cancellation, if they gain power.
More here: CBC article Nov 17, also see Conservative leader John Cummins's policy document release.
 

Getting round the ban?

 

LightBulbChoice.com is coming to life again, a good comprehensive American campaign website with a forum, blog, petition links etc.

Recently they announced the possibility of allowing the incandescents to stay legal by means of adding a device...

"LightBulbChoice.com has recently joined forces with a corporation who has developed a device that makes incandescent bulbs meet the HR 6 energy efficiency guidelines. This product will be ready for market after the first of the year… just in time for the proposed beginning of the implementation of The Ban. With the introduction of this product we now can have our bulbs and save energy too!"

From further information,
"the technology is a diode that attaches the metal bottom on the bulb that turns AC into DC current which immediately reduces the energy consumed by incandescent bulbs by 40%... putting them within the new efficiency guidelines.
The corporation also has the patent on the design to put the diode directly inside the bulbs themselves. First they will come out with the "stick on" version, then they will come out with the actual light bulb."


Comment
Since light output seems lowered at an additional cost, the question is if consumers will go for this (even if legal).

German firms tried what seems to be similar current alteration devices some years ago without popular appeal, while the several other ways to improve incandescent energy efficiency, such as filament alterations and bulb coatings, (more: http://ceolas.net/#li8x) have all similarly lacked appeal, just like the touted halogen replacements.

As covered on the website, the appeal of regular incandescents goes beyond their price, in their simplicity and versatility, but if they are banned, then of course any of these developments might at least offer an alternative.
Unfortunately, EU and USA light bulb energy usage regulations effectively ban halogen and other incandescent replacements before 2016 (EU) and 2020 (USA).

In any case, major manufacturers have shown scant interest in improving incandescents, ever since the Phoebus Cartel limited their lifespans, and are even less likely to do so in the face of alternative profitable CFL and LED sales (cue China comment, previous blog post here).

That said,
if the corporation involved in the above device can temporarily exploit a legal gap in the market to provide a greater incandescent choice, so much the better...
 

China Joins the Fray...

 
China is now more actively seeking to phase out incandescent light bulbs...
Kevan at Savethebulb.org has the most informative article on this, culled from several sources.

Excerpts, with some comments:

Imports and sales of 100 watt and higher incandescent bulbs will be banned from October next year, while those of 60 watts and above will be banned from October 2014
[with more set to follow]

The move has been forced from outside China.
The Global Environment Facility fund, which has invested millions of dollars in China to encourage the phase-out, says that moving to efficient lighting is one of the simplest ways for countries to cut carbon emissions.

Christophe Bahuet, the deputy country director of the United Nations Development Programme, said: “I think what’s important for us is that China is joining an international trend. It also sends a signal that will inspire others.”

Lighting professionals in China are less enthusiastic for the ban. Liu Shengping, the secretary general of the China Association of Lighting Industry, said that it was “unrealistic” to require energy efficient lights were used everywhere. “As long as the demand exists, Chinese manufacturers can hardly pull the plug on the production line.”Wang Jinsui, the president of the China Illuminating Engineering Society, told the China Daily newspaper that the government should consider subsidies because many families would not be able to afford the more expensive energy-efficient bulbs.

Given the massive and typically very poor population in China the personal burden on families of having to pay for expensive compact fluorescent lamps will be very great
[or the subsidies will tax the tax payers, as it were...]

If China increases lamp production then there will be further increases in Cinnabar mining and Mercury production with consequent increases in pollution.

It is also unlikely that China will be any more effective that Europe in managing the collection and recycling of dead CFLs from consumers thereby increasing mercury in land fill.

Yet again the ban appears as a political tool rather than an effective measure towards sustainability!

Comment

The ban also clearly has a profit motive for Chinese CFL/LED manufacturers (including outsourced GE, Philips etc production).

Philips and Osram have been involved in other United Nations "switchover" programs.
More on how major light bulb manufacturers have pushed for and welcomed light bulb regulations and CFL programs, with references and documentation copies http://ceolas.net/#li12ax

Apart from affecting people’s freedom of product choice, the actual switchover savings are not that great anyway =
a fraction of 1% of overall energy use is saved from banning the bulbs, similarly in grid usage, as shown by US Dept of Energy, EU statistics and other official information (http://ceolas.net/#li171x) with alternative and much more meaningful ways to save energy in electricity generation, distribution or consumption.

Light bulbs don't burn coal or release CO2.
Power plants might.
If there's a problem - deal with the problem, rather than a token ban on simple safe light bulbs, light bulbs that people obviously like to use (or there would not be the pre-supposed savings in banning them).
 

American 2012 ban

The federal American ban on incandescent light bulbs is approaching...

As previously posted,
the HR 2354 Energy and Water bill as already passed in the Republican controlled House of Representatives,
contains the Burgess amendment that cuts the funds needed to implement and monitor American federal light bulb regulation starting January 2012, which would otherwise have seen regular 100 Watt bulbs removed from sale at such date.

This bill is now in the Democrat-controlled Senate:
Since it funds a range of energy measures generally desired also by the Senate Democrats it might be passed, albeit that it would take some time, given the range of additional amendments that have just been added, on November 15.

Other possible ways for American consumers to still be able buy the bulbs in future,
are the individual state repeal bills (already legislated in Texas, still progressing in Pennsylvania, Michigan and some other states: http://ceolas.net/#li01inx),
and the likely delay of the Canada 2012 ban to 2014 (CBC article),
although Mexico also seems set to implement regulations in 2012.