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.
 

Save Tungsten - Incandescent - Lamps!

Thumbs up to some others acting against the ever increasing regulation of what lighting can or can't be used. Unsurprisingly, it comes from a special sector - it's no doubt easier to engage people on specific issues rather than more generally, all the more so if it involves their daily lives.
So, after petitions and complaints from those concerned with cinema/photography or museum/exhibition work, here's a campaign from those primarily concerned with theatre, music and other event and stage lighting:
The UK based Save Tungsten Campaign (website, facebook page, twitter)

The organisation behind it is therefore ALD, the Association of Lighting Designers, quote
"the professional body representing all those who work or are interested in the creation of lighting design for live performance and events in the United Kingdom and around the world".



Save Tungsten Campaign Website introduction:

Incandescence — The Magic of Light

Stage lighting is telling stories with light . . . light that creates the air that surround the performer, magically creating ‘place’ in which the theatre: actor and audience, spring to life.

We need light onstage; sunlight, moonlight, twilight, firelight, candlelight, oil, gaslight, limelight, fluorescent, carbon arc, plasma, LED . . . and incandescent light. We know we live in a time of dramatic change. It is mandatory that we in the theatre reduce our carbon footprint, otherwise our stages will likely be washed away before our globe becomes uninhabitable.

We designers welcome and embrace change. We revel in new things and new lights. But we cannot throw away all the good things that we have inherited. We applaud new light sources, we will learn their characteristics, and enjoy the new opportunities they bring.

We must have flexible light; light that can be warm or cool; light that can be ever-so dim or blindingly bright, light that can subtly or brashly change its characteristics, full wave-length light that can truly reveal every color in the spectrum; but most of all, beautifully illuminate the human face, the humanity, which lies at the heart of all our work.

At the present time, that means that the incandescent lamp is an essential weapon in the designers’ arsenal . . . it cannot be done without. Nothing exists that offers the subtlety that is fundamental to our stage. We will use all that is new, but we must not lose or destroy the beauty of the light that has, for so long, been the center of our world of theatre.

Preserve the availability of incandescent light sources for theatrical use.

Richard Pilbrow
ALD President
Friday, March 15, 2013

Extract from the Facebook description:

Michael Hulls, Paule Constable, Neil Austin, David Finn and a whole bunch of us are trying to galvanise support amongst live event lighting designers, electricians and supervisors (concerts, drama, musicals, opera, dance) for a campaign to preserve Tungsten sources and their production in the future.

We started off worrying that Government legislation would kill off Tungsten as a source but many of us are now more concerned at the reduction in the production of various types of Tungsten lamps - it seems the manufacturers themselves are starting to push towards other sources and are phasing out Tungsten lamps by stealth.

So we propose to lobby manufacturers of lighting instruments and lamps, particularly Phillips because of their enormous global market and because they have stated that they are no longer investing any R&D into Tungsten lamp technology.

Facebook update post October 23 2013
(my emphases and parentheses [italic] comments added)

Progress update from James Laws:
In any “Save anything” campaign, there is an initial wake-up call to a situation, followed by a lot of worrying in ignorance. Thanks to the two meetings précised below, we can now work within evolving parameters, which is less exhausting and more likely to bring us results. By the time these meetings were convened, there was realisation that, in general terms, the supply of tungsten lamps is endangered by legislation and lamp manufacturers’ interpretation of and reaction to that legislation.

Meeting 1: London, 12 June
The ABTT show was the first chance for the Save Tungsten campaigners to meet with a major lamp manufacturer, John Gorse of Philips Lighting. Mr Gorse is also Chair of the Lighting Industry Association (LIA) Technical Committee. His Philips colleague, Id Inval Wynne Jones, who is Secretary of the same committee, was also there. The following brief resume is taken from some excellent notes taken by Andy Collier with an accuracy and scientific understanding that we shall sorely miss.

Richard Pilbrow chaired the meeting for some twenty campaigners. Michael Hulls stressed that we want to sort fact from fiction on how legislation affects the lamps that we need and what the timescale is for withdrawal of tungsten.
Laurence Barling, Technical Manager of the LIA, explained that legislation is progressing from non-directional lamps to include some directional lamps next year. However, many of our lamps are protected, as they are non-domestic.
Specific examples of domestic lamps as tabled by Mark Jonathan were vulnerable because LED alternatives are being developed and marketed. However, Philips is worried at the speed of banning [Hardly!] (complete in some cases by 2016) because of the problem of dimming the replacements.
A discussion ensued concerning dimming and questioning the will of Philips and others to continue to manufacture tungsten domestic lamps for specialist markets.

[Presumably here as elsewhere Philips seeks bans on all their less profitable varieties to block others from making them - which is understandable, but should not get political backing]


Meeting 2: Brussels, 21 June
This was a short exploratory meeting between Ruben Kubiak, the Official of the European Commission (EC) who is responsible for the Regulations on Ecodesign of Lamps, and Simon Pike, ALD member. Simon was able to demonstrate that LED is not always an adequate substitute for tungsten. From this initial understanding, the following points emerged:
• We need to make specific requests to the EC and others. Blanket modification of regulations will not happen.
• Our use of domestic lamps for theatrical use can be protected within the regulations.
Simon then gave a good explanation of the differences in scope of the non-directional and directional regulations. Simon gives some useful websites for further research and four specific recommendations, as follows:
1) Lighting designers need to define their objectives in terms that are understandable to policy-makers (in particular, the European Commission).
2) The ALD should become involved in the quarterly UK government meetings on Ecodesign (I will investigate further).
3) Investigate whether PEARLE would be an appropriate body, and willing, to represent the interests of the lighting community on the Commission Ecodesign Forum. Do any Save Tungsten campaigners have contacts in SOLT or TMA? Paule Constable is currently in touch with SOLT.
4) Investigate whether lack of knowledge is discouraging theatre suppliers from selling lamps as “special purpose lamps”. If this is a problem, consider developing a guidance note.
“Our Man in Brussels” will prove invaluable as this saga unfolds.
Thanks to John Gorse and Philips for their contribution to clarifying the situation.

May follow up with these in separate post or posts to prevent undue length here:

Philips reaction, June 2013
Philips allays theatre designers’ fears over future of tungsten lamps
eg John Gorse, technical marketing manager at Philips, said that – in terms of the legislation – "the amount of products that are going to be specifically affected is nothing really to worry about"... "loopholes in current legislation banning tungsten bulbs for the domestic market enable theatre designers to access lamps that might be banned in the UK." Ah yes, sounds familiar.

Also, UK lighting designer and EU consultative "stakeholder" Kevan Shaw of savethebulb.org has on his company blog a good post about this, describing the limitations of LEDs in substituting for Tungsten lamps for concert lighting.

Regarding the EU consultations mentioned, there will be a public consultative meeting November 25 in Brussels about the general EU incandescent lighting regulations as introduced 2009 on domestic markets.
More information about it will be seen here and on the Facebook group that relates to this blog:
Incandescent Light Bulb Alliance (http://facebook.com/groups/bulballiance)

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.

 

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.
 

More Magic of Incandescent Light Bulbs...

Update August 30

source  yladda

As a fitting continuation of the last post on the "magic" of incandescent type bulbs, illustrated by the Uncle Fester magically lit bulb, lo and behold the closing ceremony of the London Olympics on Sunday bringing up something similar:
Attendants dressed up rather like Government officials with bowler hats, and light bulbs on top.

source  eurosport


Somewhat ironically, given that British Government officials who enthusiastically support a ban on them were themselves looking on, the light bulbs were as seen aesthetically in the form of simple regular incandescents, rather than looking like squiggly fluorescents or new LEDs (though no doubt with a relatively dim LED inside ;-) ).

General availability of such hats unknown...
though they are being sold on eBay with the costumes ... starting bid £200.00.

Update Aug 30: As seen from the above link several more suits now being sold.
Also just the bowler hats with bulbs ...still costing three-figure sums!



For anyone getting a taste for the bowler hat theme... ;-)
(both below from Scraphacker.com)

or even

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!"
 

UK Parliament Debate on Light Bulbs

 
Post revised and updated May 24


Thank you to Dr. Robert Hanson for this information

Private Members Debate
Yesterday 22nd May in Westminster Hall,
a chamber of the UK parliament,
on future implications of the EU light bulb regulations:
video archive direct link


The issue, raised by Edinburgh MP Sheila Gilmore, covered the health issue arising out of banning incandescent bulbs, in particular problems with fluorescent bulb usage such as UV light and other electromagnetic radiation.

The All Party Committee on lighting referred to, embedded document (original source):




Regarding Edinburgh MP Gilmore, fellow Edinburghian... Edinburgher... (there is a whole debate online about what people from Edinburgh are called) Kevan has covered something similar before, on Savethebulb.org in June 2011

UK Parliament Early Day Motion on Incandescent Lamps
MP Sheila Gilmore has proposed Early Day Motion 1878 asking MPs to address the issue of continued availability of incandescent lamps for people suffering from diseases aggravated by the spectral and other properties of CFLi energy saving lamps.

During the consultation process the issue of medically significant sensitivity was discussed at length and assurance was given that there was no intention that people who would suffer as the result of using CFLi would be prevented from getting incandescent lamps. It was, however, left to the individual member states to arrange their legislation to allow for this. Needless to say most have not. As you can see from the post elsewhere about ‘Heatballs’ some countries, Germany in this case, are being quite draconian, preventing the import and sale of incandescent lamps.

This motion will hopefully address the issue of availability of incandescent lamps however does nothing to ensure the long term availability as there has to be a sufficient volume of sales to support the manufacture of them.

Readers from the UK are urged to write to or email their MP asking them to sign the early day motion to get some Parliamentary action on this issue. You can find out who your MP is on this website:

http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/

Thanks

Kevan Shaw

Comment

While understanding those with medical difficulties,
it is a little unfortunate that it is the only objection raised, and that in the process (perhaps to help curry favor) spokespeople generally give in about how "great it otherwise is to have the legislation to save the planet", unnecessarily playing into the hands of the legislators given the lack of overall energy savings as referenced.

In a typical ensuing exchange of pleasantries, the government representatives (in this case Environment Minister Richard Benyon) predictably counter how some alternative incandescent halogens supposedly are allowed, or how appropriate LEDs are coming, and the like.

As it happens, future halogen-type incandescent availability for ordinary use is in doubt looking at both EU and US legislation, but even if the alternatives were there, there are extensive arguments as to why the regulations in themselves are unnecessary and wrong, as covered in the Deception rundown.

This includes the typical "19% of electricity is used for lighting"
raised by the Minister in the above video debate:
The 19% figure includes much lighting irrelevant to incandescent replacement (also remembering that replacement lights use electricity too) such that only around 1% of grid electricity is saved, without going into additional lifecycle (manufacture, transport, recycling) energy use, as referenced in the link.

Given all the other reasons against regulations listed and referenced,
the health side-effects of incandescent replacements should not be the only issue raised:
Arguably it would strengthen - not weaken - their case if the health campaigners did not give in so easily on the other aspects...


Update 24 May:
As pointed out in the comments (thank you Steven),
looking more overall at saving energy and emissions,
then even if a light bulb policy was held as necessary,
stimulated market competition as best option, or as a second option taxation that can help pay for price lowering subsidies on alternatives, are both better than regulations:
Not just to keep choice, and not just to lower energy use and emissions, but to do so at the lowest possible cost to government and consumers - and regardless of whether you are a right wing (market) or left wing (tax) politician.
A more comprehensive look at alternative light bulb taxation and market policies with examples, Ceolas.net#li23x.
 

User Testimonials

 
Send Your Light Bulbs to Washington, February 2 post

The comprehensive website Light Bulb Choice has a new testimonial section.

The debate is often political in nature, but one should not forget the impact these and other society regulations can have on people.
That includes the choice of what lighting to use from comfort and enjoyment aspects, since the smooth broad spectrum light quality of incandescents is not found in CFL or LED lighting, with their more spiky emission spectra, a more "unnatural" light in that regard.
But it also includes the deeper problem for some people, who suffer from light sensitivity conditions, such as some migraine or skin sensitivity disorders, or other electromagnetic radiation sensitivity.
See http://ceolas.net/#li18x onwards.

Politicians are of course sometimes aware of this in talking of how "Joe X" told them this-or-that in how "Washington rules are bothering them" - so such testimonials can be a further reference for them.

in the UK, Savethebulb.org as seen also works with light sensitivity groups such as the Spectrum Alliance. They also have a page with people's stories.


The common retort is that "incandescents are not banned", you can "still buy Halogen incandescent replacements", and the like.

Certainly, the lighting choice reduction is not as drastic as some critics would have it.
However, although in the short term, also from stocking up, the lack of choice will not be so evident, it should be noted that not only will incandescent technology be effectively banned for ordinary lamps by the ever more stringent phase out standards that will come to apply in the USA (after 2014) or the EU (by 2016) in enacted legislation, but the light quality of replacement incandescents is somewhat different too, they run hotter etc, and of course cost much more for marginal savings.
See for example the Freedom Light Bulb "Yes it is a ban" post.