USA and Canada Light Bulb Ban: Now and in the Future

Updates Jan 3

Given the entry into force January 1 of the US ban on most remaining incandescent light bulbs for general service use, a review of the law as it stands and future implications.
Note that the same will apply to Canada, adopting the same regulations as USA in a tighter timeframe: Official link, Canada regulations.


"Beyond 2014, while also allowing LEDs, the new rule for general household lighting of 45 lumens per Watt happens to be exactly that of fluorescent 'energy saving' bulbs..."



 Gary Locke




Edited and somewhat updated sections of the accompanying website,
http://ceolas.net/#li01inx "What is Banned and When"

Lumens	old Watts	new Watts	Min Life	min CRI	Date Start
1490-2600	100	72	1,000 hrs	80	1/1/2012
1050-1489	75	53	1,000 hrs	80	1/1/2013
750-1049	60	43	1,000 hrs	80	1/1/2014
310-749	40	29	1,000 hrs	80	1/1/2014

CANADA: Same rules, 100 + 75W start 1 Jan 2014, 60 + 40W bulbs 31 Dec 2014.
January 1 2015 therefore sees Canada "in phase" with US regulations.

From the legislation, starting 2012 for General Service Incandescent Light Bulbs:
A phase-out based on the lumen (brightness) rating of the bulbs, rather than their wattage.
Standard bright 100 Watt equivalent household light bulbs can therefore be at most 72 Watts equivalent from January 2012, and so on with increasing stringency.
There are also lifespan and CRI (color rendering index) provisions. The coloring rendering index measures how accurately colors are shown.


Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007/Title III/Subtitle B/Section 321
"The Secretary of Energy shall report to Congress on the time frame for commercialization of lighting to replace incandescent and halogen incandescent lamp technology"

2 tiers, based on 2012-2014 and 2014-2017, backstop rule extending to 2020.
A third tier is planned, provisionally set for 2020: "DOE [the Department of Energy] is also required under the EISA 2007 to initiate a rulemaking in 2020 to determine whether the standards in effect for general service incandescent lamps should be increased" as per the DOE fact sheet linked below. The understanding since then is that this will likely be brought forward.
Aim: to reduce the allowed wattage for incandescent bulbs by 28 percent starting in 2012, becoming a 67 percent reduction by 2020 at the latest, in accordance with the defined annual review procedures.
Should the review procedures not have produced a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt by January 1, 2017, that sees a backstop final rule come into force:
Effective January 1, 2020, the Secretary shall prohibit the sale of such general service lamps that do not by then meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt.

`(i) The term 'general service incandescent lamp' means a standard incandescent or halogen type lamp that—
`(I) is intended for general service applications;
`(II) has a medium screw base;
`(III) has a lumen range of not less than 310 lumens and not more than 2,600 lumens; and
`(IV) is capable of being operated at a voltage range at least partially within 110 and 130 volts.

Prohibited act... for any manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler to distribute in commerce an adapter that—
`(A) is designed to allow an incandescent lamp that does not have a medium screw base to be installed into a fixture or lampholder with a medium screw base socket; and
`(B) is capable of being operated at a voltage range at least partially within 110 and 130 volts.'
[In short, to stop people from getting what they want, manufacturers and sellers are not allowed to provide adapters that allow other incandescent lamps to use medium screw base 110-130 volt sockets]


List of exceptions: Appliance lamps, Black light lamps, Bug lamps, Colored lamps, Infrared lamps, Left-hand thread lamps, Marine lamps, Marine’s signal service lamps, Mine service lamps, Plant light lamps, Reflector lamps, Rough service lamps, Shatter-resistant lamps (including shatter-proof and shatter-protected), Sign service lamps, Silver bowl lamps, Showcase lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps, Traffic signal lamps, Vibration service lamps, G shape lamps with a diameter of 5” or more, T shape lamps that use no more than 40W or are longer than 10”, and all B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G-30, M-14, or S lamps of 40W or less.

Sales will be monitored to avoid substitution effects - see below.
These will also be reduced on mentioned planned tier 3 regulation by 2020.


Lighting section 321 of Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (pdf)
Application: DOE appliance standards homepage, details (pdf), details with list of exceptions.
Industry info page: This also includes more information on the law for "modified spectrum" lamp types (less energy efficient ordinary bulbs that have tinting to make the light more white in color).
For extensive information 2012-2014 including reflector lamps etc, with illustrations:
0sram-Sylvania document (pdf)

Greenwashing Lamps good post about the US ban
Also the past posts on the specifications here, with a 2012-2014 update here.




Points regarding the Legislation

General
The manufacture and import - but not the sale itself - of general service incandescent lighting is progressively restricted, beginning with ordinary 100 W bulbs.
So the sale of existing stock of the targeted bulbs will still be allowed.
Bulbs equivalent to 25W and below, of 150-200W, and of higher wattages, are also not affected, subject to sales monitoring as with specialist bulbs.


Packaging
Additionally, the January 1 2012 packaging requirement changed the way light bulbs are referred to.
Instead of buying a "72 watt light bulb," one might purchase a "1500 lumens" light bulb.
See the blog post on packaging and labeling in the USA and the EU.


Halogen Replacements
The Halogen etc incandescent general service mains voltage replacements, which the initial ban was geared to allow via the typical "72 Watt" replacements for 100 W bulbs (etc) found in stores,
will therefore also be banned sometime after 2014. They are typically 20-25 lumen per Watt, way below 45 lumen per Watt equating to fluorescent bulbs. LEDs also pass the standard.
If the review process beginning in 2014 does not ban Halogen replacements by 2017, the backstop final rule that kicks in will ensure a ban by 2020.

Of course, legislation can be overturned.
But any legal change has to pass both Houses of Congress and get the President's signature. Hardly anytime soon.
Rather, the Obama administration with Senate Democrat cooperation has sought to tighten rather than relax energy efficiency regulations, including on lighting.

Besides, Halogens are themselves still different and more complex than ordinary simple incandescents, and much more expensive for marginal savings, so not popular either with politicians (no halogen switchover programs!) or with consumers in a free choice.
Halogen or other incandescent development has moreover been ruled out by major manufacturers, as per meeting with the EU (European) Commission November 25 last.


CRI
About the color rendering index (CRI):
This, more precisely is "the ability of a light source to reproduce the colors of various objects faithfully in comparison with an ideal or natural light source".
According to the legislation, CFL, LED, or incandescent light sources "used to satisfy lighting applications traditionally served by general service incandescent lamps" must as seen have a minimum CRI rating of 80.
Incandescents, in performing as "black body radiators" typically have a perfect or near perfect 100 rating (unlike CFLs or LEDs), so the lesser 80 requirement, if followed by manufacturers, degrades current performance. In other words, yet another issue when it comes to targeting this technology.
Light sources with a high CRI are also desirable in color-critical applications such as photography and cinematography, and even when fluorescent lamps or LEDs have high CRI ratings, their spiky emission spectra do not correlate well with color rendering quality in practice, so that the photography and movie-making issues remain.



Ban Anomaly
It's a funny world and a funny US Congress.
Notice the anomaly that 75 W "dim" bulbs are allowed, but a 75 W "bright" bulb is effectively banned!
In other words, as the official sources confirm, incandescent bulbs are being banned on the basis of their "lumen" brightness - not on their energy use, bright bulbs being banned first.
So you can still, for a while, buy a 100W incandescent bulb if it's dim enough, which might, at least at first, seem an attractive alternative even to regular incandescents, since dimmer incandescent bulbs of given wattages tend to have have longer lifespans (the trade off).
That's just the start of it....there are specific legal workarounds to that effect, higher energy use but longer life for a bulb of given brightness.



Ban Workarounds
CFLs and LEDs have brightness issues, especially omnidirectionally to light up rooms - and they get dimmer with age.
That may mean using more of them to light up a room, negating savings, along with all the other reasons that savings don't hold up in practice, as covered via the left hand links here, especially the summary page link as also found at the bottom of this post.
But the focus here is on the incandescent bulbs themselves, and how they might continue to be used.


Rough Service
One is the "rough service" bulb route, for example Newcandescent incandescent manufacturer (who conspicuously don't state bulb brightness!) eg 100W 130V 10,000 hrs $2.88 bulb, or Aero-Tech , 100W 120V 20 000hr bulb, 1000 lumen, for $2 [both manufacturers with minimum order conditions]
That makes the Aero-Tech bulb brightness somewhere between 1000 hour standard incandescent 60W bulbs (900 lumen) and 75W bulbs (1200 lumen), regular 110-120V 100W bulbs being around 1700 lumen.
While such "rough service" classed sturdier bulbs are allowed subject to sales monitoring as a workaround to get incandescents, and it's welcome that manufacturers are supplying them to meet such consumer demand, the bulbs would therefore otherwise be more of a convenience measure for difficult to reach locations - rather than to save energy or money for required brightness.

Raised Voltage
As also with the Newcandescent bulb, many other currently legal bulbs eg "long life halogen" type replacements are marketed on a longer lifespan basis, this time from raising the voltage usually to 130V - but again, on a "dimmer bulb" 1000 lumen or so for 100W rating.
[As an aside, European and other 220V bulbs are noticeably dimmer than American ones, 100W only c.1300 lumen but rated 1000 hrs lifespan versus 750 hrs on US standard requirement]

AC to DC
A third way also marketed as a workaround is via solutions like Powerdisc.com:
Quote: "By converting the electricity power used by the bulb from AC to DC, the Envirolite PowerDisc significantly reduces energy consumption up to 42% and also extends the bulb life up to 100 times therefore reducing bulb replacement costs." The website quotes around 30% lumen reduction along the lines of 130 Volt lamps, but that this brightness will be better maintained through the bulb life.
It is also more flexibly applicable to any incandescent bulb, just by putting a small disc on the bottom of it. While it does not stop the bulbs being banned, it therefore again extends their life. Good American inventive, and combative. spirit!




 Christena Dowsett

Texas Hold 'Em
While some states like California and Nevada and the Canadian British Columbia province have sought to precede federal regulations, others have sought to stop them.
Most notably, Gov Perry signed into law incandescents as being legal in Texas June 2011 (Texas Allows Regular Incandescent Bulbs). The practical implications are less clear, supposedly that is only for local manufacture and sale, and it comes under similar federal-defying local laws like Arizona gun law or California /Colorado marijuana laws.
Still, Gov Perry got help from Republican colleagues Joe Barton and Michael Burgess in Congress, House Energy Committee, in attempts at thwarting federal regulations, including achieving the specific albeit temporary block of funding for federal oversight of regulations in Texas and elsewhere.
South Carolina Gov Nikki Haley may sign similar bill albeit stuck at end of senate stage there, having local small independent manufacturing, apparently awaiting federal and Texas repeal efforts - in fact around a dozen state repeal bills have been launched, most though likely speculative for a local constituency base without hope of success (similar MP campaign effort seen in Canada, as in a recent post here).



Uncle Sam Strikes Back: Sales Monitoring
Joining hands with Uncle Maple Leaf...

Exemption reversal condition: The Act includes a provision whereby, in cooperation with NEMA, sales of certain exempted lamps will be monitored, specifically:
• rough service
• vibration service
• 2601-3300 lumen general service (150-200W)
• 3-way
• shatter-resistant lamps

For each of these lamp types, if sales double above the increase modeled for a given year — signaling that consumers are shifting from standard incandescents to these incandescents and thereby supposedly not saving energy — the lamp type will lose the exemption.

Consequence: A requirement that any such popular lamp type can then only be sold "in a package containing 1 lamp", and with a maximum 40 watt rating in most cases (95-watt for 2601-3300 lumen ie 150-200W lamps, variably reduced for 3-way lamps).

In other words, if sales go up, further restrictions arise, and only 1 lamp packages may be sold:
Buy several packages, or walk out the shop and back in again to buy another one.

Note that tier 3 regulations by 2020 is planned to cut down on allowed exemptions anyway.



EU too
Too much to go into here, the EU is not behind in elaborate checks and monitoring.
See previous posts under the EU tag. It includes Commission proposals to ban fittings for special bulbs which are modified to take regular bulbs, and the German Energy Commissioner seeking to extend the 50 German store inspectors he apparently got to inspect "rough service" sales in ordinary stores in that country, to EU-wide inspections.
An earlier Irish Government proposal has sought to fine the distribution of illegal (imported) incandescent bulbs by individual citizens eg to neighbors with a 5000 euro first offence fine, and a 50 000 euro fine alternatively 6 months prison for repeat offence. Such would of course be on top of any customs etc fines for illegal imports generally.


Pssst...want to buy a light bulb...


 cei.org


The crass idiocy of a bureaucrat ruled world:
Do whatever it takes, to stop people from buying what they want, who in turn obviously do what they can, to satisfy their desires.
Above all, do not make any rational decisions, to actually deal with energy or emission issues, as per other posts here and the ceolas.net site.



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.
 

Preliminary Report: November 25 EU Consultation Forum

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?!




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

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

Updated 1 October, original post 29 September

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A probably legal incandescent bulb!

As readers may know, and as covered before eg "UK/EU Distributors Clarify:
Candle, Golf Ball and other Incandescents also to Stay Available", rough service type bulbs are still legal in various jurisdictions, although supposedly now more subject to scrutiny in the EU...

Still, this probably meets any requirement of a legal industrial rough service shockproof incandescent light bulb :-)
Maybe one that remains available for future domestic fittings too?!
(image origin unknown)

 

SaveTheBulb on The Incandescent Light Bulb Ban

A welcome new post by lighting designer Kevan Shaw, a recognized "stakeholder" by the EU Commission and their EcoDesign Committee legislating about light bulbs, and who therefore has had the pleasure - or not - of sitting in on many meetings with them....

The incandescent lamp is dead...
Long live the incandescent lamp!

September 1, 2012

Today sees the implementation of the final phase of the EcoDesign regulation outlawing the “Placing on the Market” of conventional domestic incandescent lamps. As has happened in the last couple of years I have been fielding phone calls from various media whose idea of a story seems largely limited to finding people who are hoarding vast quantities of old lamps.

So what are we left with?
Currently in the UK there still seems to be some availability of even 60W and 100W lamps. The big retailers such as DIY sheds and supermarkets do not have any, however local retailers, corner shops and pound stores seem to have continuing stocks. Surprisingly some of these seem to be coming from major players, Philips particularly seem well represented.

Exceptions from the ban include “specialist lamps.” These include lamps for domestic appliances such as ovens, cooker hoods, refrigerators and the like. Some of these applications, particularly ovens, are just too hostile an environment for any of the energy saving technologies to survive, it is likely that these lamps will be around for a while. Another class of lamps excepted are the “Rough Service” type. These are intended for applications where vibration, heat, rough handling and similar things are encountered. They tend to have thicker filaments with more supports. This results in them being markedly less efficient than conventional incandescent lamps but also many have specifically long service lives easily challenging the boasts of the Compact Fluorescent lamp of 8 to 10 years and treading on the toes of some LED replacements. At least one UK lamp supplier is pushing the bounds of this exception by offering rough service “Candle” shaped lamps. We also see Rough Service lamps on the shelves of bigger DIY sheds and very visible at retailers like Halfords and Maplin who, arguably, have stocked these as specialist products for years.

The other “incandescent” lamp type that remains available are the Halogen energy savers. For the most part these are a really good substitute providing comparable light output and colour performance with a typical 30% energy saving. Unfortunately some suppliers are selling rather poor quality products that fail to meet the performance claimed, however that happens everywhere.

What of the future?
The current regulations are required to be reviewed in 2014. It is inevitable that there will be pressure to increase the performance requirements and potential “loopholes,” such as the rough service lamps, will be addressed particularly if it is obvious that these are supplying a greater proportion of the market than might be expected.

Is the ban achieving its goals?
That rather depends on who you are and what your aims were in promoting the legislation. As a strategy for energy saving i believe it is a total failure. Despite researching and indirectly asking questions at the political level there seems absolutely no evidence that there is any energy saving attributable to this legislation. It is important that people continue to ask politicians for evidence on this. We cannot allow the review to take place without some realistic evidence on whether or not energy savings have been achieved.

From the lamp industry perspective the ban has been very effective in removing a low profit margin cheap product from the market and replacing it with a selection of relatively high priced and higher profit margin products. What they may not have achieved is quite the profitability they expected due to the shift in manufacture to the far east. The majority of CFLs and LEDs are made in factories not owned outright by the old lamp manufacturers. These companies are now largely middle men doing deals with Chinese lamp factories who brand and package products with the big names we are familiar with.

From an environmental perspective we are seeing a big failure.
We have replaced a simple, relatively inert product that can be safely dumped in landfills with a variety of products that contain Mercury, plastics that are not re-cycleable but use oil in their manufacture and considerable amounts of electronic components. Neither is there a suitable infrastructure to recover these lamps at end of life nor is there any effective form of compulsion for users to ensure they are disposed of correctly. Europe is also directly importing tonnes of mercury from China each year but has also banned exporting it so even of there was a suitable infrastructure there is no way of ensuring recovery and re-use of this material from lamps.

We may be seeing the end of this phase of legislation, however we need to continue to question this legislation and ensure that the review required is properly done and that all these issues are properly dealt with. Please do write to your MEP and question this legislation if you do there is a chance that things will go no further, if you don’t and the Eurocrats get away with this you can bet they will think up something even more stupid in pretty short order!

Kevan Shaw 1 September 2012

Comment

The point about regulations not actually saving energy for society is of course important to make, but should be obvious enough to readers of this blog, this and much else also being covered on the "How Bans are Wrongly Justified" page, with extensive references.


To comment on some other points..

So what are we left with? Currently in the UK there still seems to be some availability of even 60W and 100W lamps....
At least one UK lamp supplier is offering rough service “Candle” shaped lamps. We also see Rough Service lamps on the shelves of bigger DIY sheds and very visible at retailers like Halfords and Maplin...

Indeed there seem still to be reasonable UK supplies of incandescents, and rough service types are being made and marketed and sold to households - all of which may of course change in time.
There was reported suspicion that imports and distributor stock of incandescents was substantially boosted before the ban axe came down, starting September 2009, a logical enough assumption for what after all is (or was) the most popular form of domestic lighting, though (perhaps unsurprisingly) I cannot find any evidence of it.
The media are now similarly saying that Bell and other manufacturers are "ramping up production of rough service bulbs"... so perhaps if any ban decision comes, stocks will again last a long while (which incidentally yet again puts a dent in supposed savings, from people refusing to do what they "should", as good Europeans).
On UK (and, by inference, EU open market) bulb availability including special candle types also in rough service format, see the recent August 30 post here
"UK/EU Distributors Clarify: Candle, Golf Ball and other Incandescents also to Stay Available".

Surprisingly some of these [remaining incandescent lamps] seem to be coming from major players, Philips particularly seem well represented

Philips, GE, and Osram/Sylvania manufacturers lobbied for and welcomed the ban, see the Ceolas industrial politics section, and more on their activities since can be seen by say putting say "Philips" in the search box of this blog.

As said before, there is nothing at all wrong in manufacturer seeking profits.
However, as also seen, they seem to get unnecessarily good help from politicians, to the detriment of consumers, not just with regulations, but in all the subsidised replacement programs, including in developing countries where the hapless citizens can't afford the bulbs that other citizens have rejected (or bans would not be "necessary" from insufficient voluntary purchases).

There is also the specific irony of Philips (and maybe others) selling "legal "California" 95 Watt bulbs, given that they handily slipped in with Greenpeace and others to campaign for an incandescent ban that started with 100 Watt bulbs, to help Save the Earth
("Save Our Profit" probably does not garner the same potential support ;-)).

The other “incandescent” lamp type that remains available are the Halogen energy savers. For the most part these are a really good substitute providing comparable light output and colour performance with a typical 30% energy saving.

However, as Kevan has himself pointed out, the Halogens are also slated for a ban.
By 2016 all "general service" replacement type Halogens in the EU are effectively banned from the standards set
(Tip from the politicians and their hangaround bureaucrat friends: If you don't want to seem nasty by inflicting a "ban" on the idiot citizens you have the misfortune to rule, just set a "standard" that is impossible to meet)

From an environmental perspective we are seeing a big failure. We have replaced a simple, relatively inert product that can be safely dumped in landfills with a variety of products that contain Mercury, plastics that are not re-cycleable but use oil in their manufacture and considerable amounts of electronic components. Neither is there a suitable infrastructure to recover these lamps at end of life nor is there any effective form of compulsion for users to ensure they are disposed of correctly.

Yes, how amazing that Our Dear Beloved Leaders (bows head in gratitude) do not think of the consequences of their actions.

Europe is also directly importing tonnes of mercury from China each year but has also banned exporting it so even of there was a suitable infrastructure there is no way of ensuring recovery and re-use of this material from lamps.

This is an interesting aspect I have not seen raised before.
If Chinese citizens are suffering so much in the local extraction, processing and use of mercury in lamp making, then why not let them have the mercury back - after all, it is already there, in environmental terms.
If you live in Brussels, don't bother trying to understand this.

What of the future?
The current regulations are required to be reviewed in 2014.
It is inevitable that there will be pressure to increase the performance requirements and potential “loopholes,” such as the rough service lamps, will be addressed particularly if it is obvious that these are supplying a greater proportion of the market than might be expected...
It is important that people continue to ask politicians for evidence [of energy saving]. We cannot allow the review to take place without some realistic evidence on whether or not energy savings have been achieved...
Please do write to your MEP and question this legislation if you do there is a chance that things will go no further, if you don’t and the Eurocrats get away with this you can bet they will think up something even more stupid in pretty short order!

Worth highlighting... no comment needed really.
Ways in which people can make their objections known, not just in the EU but in the USA and elsewhere also, is gradually being listed on a "page" on this blog, see the left hand column.

 

Legal EU Incandescent Bulbs use more Energy than Illegal Incandescents!

image thanks moritz gieselmann

From previous posts regarding rough service availability to ordinary consumers, it was seen that this would be hard to stop anyway for the reasons given:

So effectively the EU are contributing to what they say they are against, since legal EU bulbs use more energy than their banned equivalents!

Regular readers will note that this is similar to the American situation.
The rough service bulbs last longer but are dimmer (the trade off).
Bell as mentioned in the last post seemingly don't give lumen (brightness) rating for their products, but as previously seen from the US discussion it is typically 100W rough service being equivalent to 60-75W regular bulbs in brightness.

So for a bulb of certain brightness, which is after all what you want, legal EU bulbs waste more energy than banned EU bulbs!
They also thereby cost a lot more in use of course, despite longer lifespans.

The predictable EU retort "Let them use energy saving bulbs!" (aka "Let them eat cake!") obviously does not apply for the light quality, appearance etc reasons one might choose such incandescents, also given that Halogen replacement types will also be "phased out" in the EU by 2016.
 

UK Distributors Clarify: Candle, Golf Ball and other Incandescents also to Stay Available

Update August 31
Updated with checks April 2016: The listed sites still have regular type incandescents, including frosted, opal, coloured etc types

As mentioned in recent posts here, "rough service" incandescents remain legal in both the USA and EU, although the authorities are trying to deal with their spread to the general public in various ways.

As it is particularly topical in the EU in view of the "final" ban on the simple regular types on Saturday, I sought clarification from some UK distributors on exactly what bulb types would still be available (being an EU issue, would apply cross-border within the EU as well).
My assumption was that just the "standard" pear shape type bulb would be sold, figuring that there wasn't much of a case for hanging up small candle shape etc bulbs in mines or wherever else industrially used...

However, the answer given is that such alternative incandescents will remain available as well, for example National Lamps and Components (NLC UK) have also put up this information on their blog

One large manufacturer, Bell, recently sent lamp distributors a list of incandescent “Tough lamps”, which said “don’t panic – All incandescent Tough lamps will be available from stock in September, candle shape, golf ball shape and standard household GLS shape.

From the NLC site:
GLS (regular type) bulbs sales page

Rough service GLS light bulb. 240V 60W BC Pearl, identical to the phased out traditional incandescent bulbs with extra filament supports.
Ideal for machinery lighting and applications that are subject to vibration.
Also perfect replacement for household standard light bulbs.

Meanwhile - looking at websites of other distributors, such as Ian Fursland's Light Company based in Herfordshire, they also have the rough service types while stocks of regular candle type and other incandescents are also still fairly plentiful in online sale, even sometimes of long "banned" 60W+ wattages ("Here at The Lamp Company we have large stocks of 100w, 60w and 40w lamps in golf ball, GLS and candle shapes remaining").


Looking at the Bell (British Electric Lamps Ltd) manufacturer lighting catalogue, it also still has banned regular types, including decorative types

Product Category Lamps
Product Group Incandescent
Product Sub Group Decorative Household
Product Type 35mm Candle Tough Lamp
Volts 240/250
Watts 60W
Cap Type SES/E14
Colour/Finish Opal
Burn Hours 3000

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.
 

Germans Dim View of Light Bulb Inspections

Updated August 24


Interesting news article from The Local, Germany:





German language stories with the above and more, also via their links:
Germany: Der Tagesspiegel, Die Welt
Austria: ORF, Futurezone




Comment

As mentioned before, resistance to the ban is particularly strong in Germany and Austria,
both having sales figures demonstrating active hoarding, and both with various actions against the ban, (search function may be used for these posts): The Austrian film Bulb Fiction, the German Light Bulb Conspiracy documentary, several German TV documentaries (ZDF, 3Sat), the Heatball satirical campaign, as well as the Canned Bulb and Bulb Memorial campaigns to be covered in blog posts soon - apart from active involvement by mainstream politicians and by "heavyweight" printed media like Der Spiegel, of which more can also be seen on Ceolas.net,
for example in the story behind the EU ban.

Several petitions have also been launched, for example as via
Avaaz.org   Gopetition.com   Openpetition.de

The UK, by comparison, has no real involvement by mainstream politicians (a few calling for recognition for light-sensitive citizens while still "welcoming regulations") or by non-tabloid media. A few petitions have been launched though, and sales figures in previous years showed some hoarding going on.

One might note a North-South Europe divide in what protest there is.
Reasons for this may be covered in a subsequent blog post (also see http://ceolas.net/#li11x "Bans in Canada, and similar countries and states").

There is an irony about the EU Commission's supervisory fervor towards others:
As Halogenica has thoroughly documented, the EU promoted CFL/LED replacement products have to meet certain criteria laid down by the Commission itself... which they don't!



Turning to the above article,
it's obviously another angle of the pedantic nature of the ban that to have the "desired effect"
consumers must be stopped by any means possible from buying what they want.

The "rough service" bulb issue also arises in the USA and elsewhere.
The irony is that apparently they cant ban those bulbs entirely because you cant hang up a LED or CFL in dark big work areas, those bulbs just arent bright enough.
Also the “rough service” situation means that if the bulbs (unavoidably) get broken a couple of times, its no big deal with incandescents, unlike with expensive CFLs and LEDs, the former of course also with mercury vapor issues on breakage. Halogen bulbs meanwhile contain toxic Bromine or Iodine, not considered relevant ordinarily, but possibly so in confined spaces like small mine chambers.


Consider what would happen if the German authorities (and others) were successful
in keeping ordinary folk from buying any incandescents that remain legal for industrial use...

"Coalminer Joe" would just buy them for his friends and so on, passing or selling them on.
“Psssst mate wanna buy a light bulb?!”
Bulb pushers will have to go to jail and sit beside drug pushers!

The American Free Our Light campaign highlights this in an amusing video on their homepage.





Not forgetting the imagery evoked by seeking to control what people can use,
as seen earlier on this blog (exaggeration..what exaggeration? ;-) )

image  Otitis
"Incandescent Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Arc Lamp"
The sequel? Why, the Temple of Gloom, of course....

image  AdminGirl
"The Charge of the Light Brigade"

image  David Dees
"Getting a Light Sentence?"

"The Heat is On"


The last one coming from the mentioned Birnen Denkmal (Light Bulb Memorial) happening,
to be returned to shortly.
 

Feeling the Heat: Heatball Update

 

The German satirical (but as it turns out, seriously undertaken) attempt at circumventing EU light bulb laws by marketing incandescent bulbs as "Heatballs" has been well covered in previous posts here, as can be seen using the search functions on the left.
The major explanatory post is "We want to shed more heat than light!".

In the ever-ongoing legal battle, the most recent decision of the local Aachen court 19th June 2012 has gone against them...though "leave to appeal" to the regional Münster court has again been given (keeping lawyers in clover).

The last newsletter message from Heatball, June 3, sets up the situation, translated roughly by Google translation further below. I corrected a little to get the gist of it across, might correct a bit more if time (German to English and vice versa particularly problematic for translation tools, given word order issues!)

Liebe Heatball Freunde,
die Elektrische Widerstandsgenossenschaft eG wird am 19.06.2012 wieder in Aachen vor dem Verwaltungsgericht in der Hauptverhandlung um die Zukunft des Heatballs kämpfen.
Was hat sich alles getan?
Im letzten Sommer hatten wir das Eilverfahren in Aachen verloren, doch seitdem hat sich einiges verändert. Das Oberverwaltungsgericht in Münster hat nun festgestellt, dass die Heatball Aktion keine Kunst ist; nun ja im Urteil des Berliner Kammergerichtes heißt es dagegen, dass der "durchschnittlich informierte Verbraucher" die Aktion als solche durchaus erkennen könne; alles eben eine Frage der Sichtweise.
In der Urteilsbegründung im Eilverfahren des VG (Verwaltungsgericht)-Aachen war die mangelnde Verbaucherinformation als Grund angegeben worden, warum der Heatball auch keine Speziallampe sein kann. Diesen Missstand hatten wir direkt nach Bekanntwerden geheilt.
Das Finanzgericht in Düsseldorf hat im Frühjahr zu unseren Gunsten entschieden und festgestellt, dass die Beschlagnahmung der Heatballs am Flughafen nicht Rechtens war. Der für die Genossenschaft entstandene Schaden durch die unnötige und rechtwidrige Zwangseinlagerung, die auf Betreiben der Bezirksregierung durch den Zoll erfolgt ist, wird uns allerdings nicht erstattet; diesen müßten wir einklagen.
Mit viel Geduld ist es uns nun gelungen, dass auch der juristische Dienst der EU-Kommission eine Stellungnahme zur Definition einer Speziallampe abgegeben hat. Wenn sich das VG-Aachen in der Hauptverhandlung hieran hält, dann dürfte dem Heatball der Titel als Speziallampe zustehen und die Ordnungsverfügung könnte aufgehoben werden. Dies wird aber aus politischen Gründen nicht passieren dürfen.
In unserem Shop haben wir derzeit Lampen der Firma Philips, die als Speziallampe anerkannt sind. Die Bezirksregierung hat prompt hiervon Warenproben genommen, die sie nicht beanstandet hat. Baugleiche Lampen waren von uns bereits in Aachen beim Eilverfahren gezeigt worden, um auf die Möglichkeiten einer Speziallampe hinzuweisen. Diese Produkte werden offensichtlicherweise von der Bezirksregierung nun als rechtskonform angesehen.
In Folge dessen werden wir nun in der übernächsten Woche die Produkte Workball
und Heatball 2.0 auf den Markt bringen und gleichzeitig der Bezirksregierung Warenproben sowie Verbraucherinformationen zukommen lassen. Da diese Produkte identisch zur Philips Speziallampe sind, würde uns die Begründung eines Verbotes sehr interessieren.

Heatball friends,
the electrical resistance is fighting on 6/19/2012 eG again in Aachen before the Administrative Court at the trial about the future of the Heat ball.

What has done it all?

Last summer we lost the fast track in Aachen, but since then a lot has changed.
The Higher Administrative Court in Münster has determined that the Heat ball action is not art, against the judgment of the Berlin Chamber Court that stated that the "average informed consumers" can see the action as such, certainly, all just a matter of perspective.
In the judgment of the VG(Verwaltungsgericht)-Aachen court, the lack of information for consumers was given as a reason why the Heat ball can not be a special lamp. This grievance we immediately fixed after the announcement.

The Tax Court in Duesseldorf in spring decided in our favor,
and found that the seizure of the Heat balls at the airport was not rightful. The resulting damage to the cooperative by the unnecessary and unlawful coercion storage, done at the behest of the District Government through customs, has not been refunded, which we have had to complain about.

With patience, we have now succeeded, that the legal departments of the European Commission have given opinion on the definition of a special lamp. If the VG-Aachen holds thereto at the coming trial, then the Heatball definition as a special lamp is expected and the public order could be lifted. For political reasons this will hardly be allowed, however.

In our shop we currently have lamps from Philips, recognized as a special lamp.
The district government has taken samples from us, but that status has not been challenged. Identical lamps had been already shown by us in Aachen in summary proceedings, to indicate the possibility of recognition as a special lamp. These products are obviously considered by the district government as legal.
As a consequence, we are now in the next week bringing out the products Work Ball and Heatball 2.0 to the market and will at the same time send samples to the district government including the consumer information. Since these products are identical to Philips special lamps, we would be very interested in any reason for a ban.

The local Aachen paper set the stage just before the court decision, article, June 18.
Article translated by Google, here.

German Zeit paper on decision, 19 June article, Google translation.

Quoting and expanding on the articles, according to current and preceding judgements, the 95% heat of the bulbs does not make them into "small heaters":
Engineer Dr Siegfried Rotthäuser and his physicist colleague Dr Rudolf Düren Hannot who are behind the Heatball action have evaluated the action as a success nonetheless.
"We have attracted attention. Now deal with the other criticisms of the incandescent ban."

As scientists, they doubt the environmental effect of the banishment of the "small, innocuous" light bulb - and they see themselves as eco-friendly, with 30 cents from each sale going to a rainforest project.


More from Dr Hannot in an earlier article, Google translation... and he is not the first physicist to criticize the token light bulb bans (eg http://ceolas.net/#li6x, http://ceolas.net/#li171x)
"They (the ruling politicians) dedicate themselves to energy-saving regulations, instead of considering where climate change really come from", he says.


Continuing the current verdict...

The Administrative Court of Aachen also looked at the 'heat balls' as household lamps in terms of the EC Regulation. The crucial factor was the purpose from a consumer perspective. From that viewpoint, the "Heat Ball" was seen as conventional incandescent lighting, and did not fall within the definition of special lamps which are allowed by the EC Regulation. Moreover, the Aachen Chamber did not see a prohibition as a violation of the fundamental right to artistic freedom.
Leave to appeal to the Higher Administrative Court of Münster was granted.

Comment

Basically then, the objection is from a marketing perspective, rather than from the bulb itself.

See the packaging below, and the writing on it.

"Nicht zur Raumbeleuchtung"...not for room lighting
Those types therefore still legal if actually sold for lighting purpose ;-)

Their bulbs were basically legal Chinese made "rough service" type incandescent imports, and the new Philips line are similarly defined legal as quoted - that is, legally sold as "lighting" elsewhere in Europe as in the USA for the time being (the law will likely gradually tighten also in the EU, given the parallell ongoing halogen bans).

An irony, as said before, is that the legal incandescent bulb types sold by Heatball and some American distributors "waste" more energy, than their now illegal equivalents of the same brightness (longer lifespan but needing higher wattage for same brightness as the pre-ban bulbs).
Add that to all the other lack of logic of current lighting regulations, pushing complex questionably safe CFL and other replacements for well known simple regular bulbs...

No bulb satire needed ... the laws are satirical enough as they are ;-)

Fact: Americans Brighter than Europeans!

 

Well, at least certain types of bulbs are... ;-)





Few people seem to know just how much brighter 110-120 volt driven bulbs are, than their 220-240 volt equivalents, a very noticeable difference.

Rounding off typical values,
a 100W American bulb gives out 1800 lumens, the European equivalent 1300 lumens.

Put another way,
a 75W US bulb (1100-1200 lumen) is closer to the European 100W bulb,
conversely, the 100W US bulb is close to a European 150W bulb (2000 lumen).


"Dimmest" of all are the Brits...
At least in theory, given 240 volt rated mains voltage and with imported bulbs rated 230 volt or 220-240 volt in lumen value, so as to also correspond to other European countries.
In return, the British bulbs should last slightly longer.

That is also why 100W US bulbs were commonly (pre-ban) only rated 750 hours,
compared to 1000 hours for EU 100W bulbs, and 1000 hours for 60W and other lesser wattages, regardless of origin.




image Ronald Hudson  123rf.com



Both energy and cost wise, "brightness wins" over lifespan trade-offs:

Look at the new fad of selling "legal long lasting incandescents" in the USA, as 130 volt bulbs, or as rough service bulbs, the latter also in the EU.
While they may only be a temporary workaround for those seeking to use incandescents
(imports and sales are monitored, at least in theory in the USA, given the current ban on oversight funding as covered in previous posts, see below), there is as mentioned an irony here: They use much more energy than equivalently bright banned incandescents!

This is easy to work out once you start taking a 100 watt long-lasting legal incandescent
and work out the energy usage of shorter lasting 75 watt legal incandescents
- bulb cheapness means that even using up 5, 10 or more bulbs for 1 long-lasting bulb,
the overall cost as well as energy use is much higher with the legal kind.
A worked example is covered in the http://ceolas.net/#li01inx section,
also in the post "US Regulation Absurdity: Dim 100W bulbs allowed, Bright 100W bulbs banned!"
 

Lightbulb Conspiracy Documentary by Cosima Dannoritzer

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

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

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

Trailer

The documentary itself, standard 53 min version with English narration

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

Longer version (1 hour 15 min) in German

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

Long version (1 hr 15 min) in French

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

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

Spanish version also on Vimeo:

Synopsis written by the film's director Cosima Dannoritzer

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

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

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

DOXA Festival (more below) review biography:

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

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

Interview with Cosima Dannoritzer about the documentary, in Spanish

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

May 3 article by Matthew Hoekstra in the Richmond Review

Planned obsolescence subject of Light Bulb Conspiracy documentary

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

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

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

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

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

An earlier March 2011 review from Apfelkraut.org

The untold story of planned obsolescence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Light Bulb Conspiracy

Kaufen für die Müllhalde

Comprar, Tirar, Comprar

Comment

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

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

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

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

The 2 main issues are therefore

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

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

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

Quality as well as lifespan arises from market competition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, politicians and bureaucrats.

How Regulations are Wrongly Justified

14 points, referenced:

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