Blog Improvements

Since Blogger changed system, a lot of old posts looked strange.
I have fixed and re-edited several of them and added a labelling system.
Also as seen doing some changes to http://ceolas.net which has deeper background information to issues raised in the blog.
Photo As seen on Facebook  Kevan Shaw Lighting Design



 

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

Updated 1 October, original post 29 September

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Incandescent Light Bulb Ban is Wrong:The Deeper Reasons

The worldwide attempts to ban incandescent bulbs by defined standards have met some resistance mainly in North America (funding block of USA incandescent ban implementation as renewed July 2013, 2 year implementation delay in Canada to 2014, with possible further delay or abandonment).

As the phase out continues, it has become obvious what the main talking points are.


Usual arguments:

1. If it's a ban or not.
The response being "We are not banning any bulbs, just making them more energy efficient,
you can still buy similar incandescent bulbs!"
Not allowing certain bulbs obviously bans them, and the several reasons the above does not hold is covered on the page How Regulations are Wrongly Justified, point 1

2. How terrible the fluorescent "energy saving" bulbs (CFLs) are.
Again the standard reply is "Well you can still buy types of incandescent bulbs..and look at the new LED bulbs!"
Certainly there are issues with fluorescents, also covered via above link, but the obvious retort about other alternatives should not be accepted either.
There is a flurry of "Great LED bulbs" promotion on the internet.
Certainly all bulbs have advantages, but more intrinsically,
Incandescent = Bulb
Fluorescent = Tube
LED = Sheet
in biggest relative advantages.
There is something strange about "progress" being cloning simple existing alternatives.
Besides, the rare earth mineral use of LEDs and other environmental issues of these complex bulbs should not be ignored either.
See How Regulations are Wrongly Justified, point 5 and later points in that rundown.


The following therefore is summary of arguments that focus on what most commentators seem to ignore or not know about.
They also appear in the linked rather lengthy discourse, but I wanted to highlight and sharpen some of the points made.
While originally aimed at a US audience, it has parallels in the EU and elsewhere, as the further references in the above linked rundown shows.

Much is applicable also to houses, cars, white goods, vacuum cleaners, TV sets, computers and all else subject to increasing and choice reducing regulation.


Industrial Policy and Energy Efficiency Regulation, as on Light Bulbs

Energy saving is not the only reason to choose a bulb,
incandescents have several advantages over replacement technology,
and touted "allowed" halogen type replacements will be phased out too.
Halogen incandescents still have differences anyway and cost much more for marginal usage savings which is why they are not popular either with consumers or politicians - no "halogen switchover programs".

Re "old obsolescent" incandescents,
that also means they are well known in usage compared to questionably safe alternatives.

Progress is not a bunch of bureacrats setting arbitrary energy usage cut off points.
Progress involves competition with existing alternatives: governments keen on helping "energy saving" products to market can always do so, without necessarily having continuing subsidies on those products.


Society laws should be about society savings,
not about what light bulb Johnny wants to use in his bedroom, personal money savings or not.
Money savings are hardly there (or take a VERY long time) for most rarely used bulbs in 40+ bulb US households, Energy Star data.
Tax payer subsidies for CFL/LED bulbs should be remembered, as for utilities:
Money savings are not there anyway when utilities are compensated for lower sales (eg California)

Overall society energy savings are negligible as well.
Cambridge Scientific Alliance (normally UK Gov supporting in advising on energy use reduction):

"The total reduction in EU energy use would be 0.54 x 0.8 x 0.76% = 0.33%
This figure is almost certainly an overestimate......
.....Which begs the question: is it really worth it?
Politicians are forcing a change to a particular technology which is
fine for some applications but not universally liked, and which has
disadvantages.
The problem is that legislators are unable to tackle the big issues of
energy use effectively, so go for the soft target of a high profile
domestic use of energy...
...This is gesture politics."

The society savings are comparatively small also on US Dept of Energy grid data, around 1%, and that does not include the greater life cycle energy use of the more complex replacements, or the fact that night use involves mainly spare grid capacity anyway
(= already there, for whoever wants to pay for it), or other factors as linked.

Supposed CO2 savings hardly there either,
as coal plants are slow and expensive to turn down at relevant times outside peak demand (DEFRA, APTECH referenced, previous link).
Effectively, the same coal is often burned regarding what bulb is on or off.


"Sustainability"?
Apart from negligible society usage savings, complex CFL/LED replacements involve more energy and CO2 in mining, manufacture (including component parts) transport and recycling - while if not recycled, then one has the dumping of mercury containing fluorescents and the loss of rare earth minerals of LEDs.

Easier to locally make simple generic cheap regular bulbs for small and startup companies to give local jobs too:
compared to patented complex bulbs mostly made in major (China) plants and brought over on low grade bunker-oil powered ships.

Long lasting low cost 10 000 - 20 000 hr incandescent bulbs can and are being made for mining and other industry, but kept away from consumer outlets for industrial political reasons, as follows.


Why did GE, Osram/Sylvania and Philips welcome the ban?
Why welcome what you can or can't make?

GE, Osram/Sylvania and Philips involvement in US lighting legislation
has been well covered in the press (eg Moorhead of Philips own
description of involvement, and GE executives on Gov advisory board),
and in a 2011 book by Howard Brandston co authored with Michael Leahy
"I, Light Bulb".
Howard Brandston (Congress consultant on lighting, a NY lighting
designer by profession) was himself involved in the hearings leading
up to the ban

Quote: The NEMA Lamp Subcommittee was composed of General Electric,
Osram Sylvania, and Phillips, the same industrial giants who formed
the old Phoebus Cartel back in 1924.
When I asked NEMA for help in fighting the incandescent light ban, I
was politely told that they could not be involved in any research
program like that.
In April 2007, ahead of Congress hearings, NEMA then announced its
support for energy efficient lighting policy...
http://ceolas.net/#phoebuspol

And the Phoebus cartel?
That is why 1000 hr standard life on regular bulbs endures - they fixed it.
As said, incandescent bulbs lasting 20 000 hrs can and are being made at low
cost for industry like mining.


And now?
Financed by the World Bank under UN auspices, Philips and Osram are part of the UNEP en.lighten program allowing profitable disposal worldwide in developing countries of CFL (or LED) light bulbs that they presumably would not otherwise sell for equivalent income.
The supposed society savings are negligible as previously referenced, and not counting dumping of mercury containing CFLs and loss of rare earth minerals in LEDs.

It's a bit as if generic patent-free penicillin was blocked and discouraged, so pharmaceutical companies could sell their expensive patented replacements to poor African countries.

There is nothing wrong in private enterprise looking for profit.
There is every wrong in assisting them by removing competition rather than increasing it.


Product standards,
are always welcome for consumer information and to assist cross-border trade.
However, it does not necessitate banning products not meeting the standards.
Even if incandescents needed specific targeting, they could be taxed and the income used to lower prices of alternatives (so people "not just hit by taxes").
But as described, governments could rather help alternatives to market without continuing subsidies, and get the manufacturers themselves to properly market their products.

People have always desired products that save energy.
"Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run":
If that is true, then as with batteries (Energizer bunny commercials) and washing up liquids, manufacturers could advertise accordingly, rather than run to regulators lobbying for bans on less profitable cheap patent expired regular bulb alternatives.

Energy saving is good,
but "energy waste" hardly comes from a personal choice of a product to use for its specific advantages,
"energy waste" is rather from unnecessary product use, as with municipal and office lighting continually left on at night.


How many politicians should it take to change a light bulb?
None
How many people should be allowed to choose?
Everyone
 

Guest Post: The ban on incandescent bulbs – where does it stand now?

Coming soon, a lengthy review on incandescent lights and energy regulation issues.

Meanwhile, a guest post!

The ban on incandescent bulbs –where does it stand now?
Since the trend started a few years back, more and more nations are jumping into the “ban incandescent bulb” wagon. The initial opposition did not gain much ground, but now that more and more people are aware about the planned phase out, where will this trend go?


A closer look at the phase out

The proposal to phase out incandescent bulbs in the US started when the federal government released the Energy and Independence Security Act of 2007. The act has set new efficiency standards for bulbs that effectively phases out the older, less efficient types. Though widely seen asa move toward eventually banning all types of bulbs, the proponents maintain that manufacturers could still produce incandescent bulbs as long as they use lesser energy than they used to.

As of January 1 2012, any incandescent bulb that produces the same amount of light as a 100-watt bulb but with at least 30% lesser energy consumption is qualified to be sold in the market. By 2013, this general rule will also cover 75-watt bulbs and by the next year 40- and 60-watt bulbs will be included. Basically, manufacturers are given time to adjust to the new regulations just as consumers are expected to eventually adapting to the alternative forms of lighting.

But not all incandescent bulbs are affected by the regulation. Some specialty bulbs are exempt such as those used for decorative purposes as well as heavy-duty bulbs for industrial use.

Elsewhere in the world, similar regulations have been put into effect to varying degrees. In some countries, a blanket ban is in place while some are still in the process of drafting regulations while their own researchers try to find other forms of lighting.


What was overlooked?

Despite the good intentions of the planned phase out, it has become clear that things were rushed. Not only has the plan been short-sighted, it also overlooked other uses of incandescent bulbs.

One major thing that has been overlooked is the current economics. While we are all for saving the planet by helping reduce energy consumption, most alternatives take quite a long time for their cost-effectiveness to be felt. Take for example LED lights, while they are far more superior in terms of energy and cost-efficiency the initial expense is too much for everyone to deal with. Incandescent bulbs are popular not only for their faithful rendering of colour but also for their affordability.

This has been one of the big reasons for those who are against the ban. While CFLs are cheaper than LEDs, recent findings have proven that they also have serious health and environmental risks that were previously unknown. Every CFL contains 3-5 mg of mercury necessary for it to work. While it may seem a small amount, continued exposure to mercury may have an effect on health. Further, there are no effective policies in place regarding the proper disposal of CFLs. Nearly 90% of used CFLs go to landfills, and when these are broken open the mercury inside seeps through the ground and potentially into the water table down to streams and other water sources. Aside from mercury, CFLs have been known to emit significant levels of UV radiation that may cause migraines and other health problems.


So is the ban worth it?

Apparently not.
Lighting does account for a significant portion of energy consumption, but unless alternatives to incandescent bulbs are made much cheaper and nearer to the light output that we are all used to, then we can’t expect popular support for the ban.


About the Author:

Cassandra Allen
Marketing Director of www.IllustraLighting.com
Cassandra is a marketing professional with over 15 years of extensive experience leading corporate marketing and internal communications for multi-national companies in diverse industries.

Comment

To clarify, I don't run a commercial blog and I am not being paid for this post, which arose from an email exchange.

But it is nice to see a recognition also of the advantages of incandescents by those in the LED business (Illustralighting is a North Carolina based supplier of home and commercial LED lighting, of which more here: http://www.illustralighting.com/blog/)
Adding to the incandescent affordability and color rendition mentioned by the author, I would add brightness, given the problem to make bright CFL or LED alternatives, particularly in small dimensions.

Conversely CFLs and LEDs have advantages, the latter avoiding mercury and can in some bulbs flexibly allow variation of blue/red/green color components in the light.

CFL/LED energy savings for individuals can't be denied albeit that the significance can be questioned.
It is also true that lighting accounts for a significant portion of overall commercial and private sector use, as per the "19%" figure often quoted in the USA.
However, as seen and commented, that ignores industry and transport sectors with low lighting demand, and the commercial sector in turn includes "commercial and institutional buildings and public street and highway lighting" as per Dept of Energy data definition.
Once whittled down in terms of actual incandescent use and replacement energy consumed,
it's down to around 1-2% of total grid energy consumption. In turn this is largely nightly off-peak, when surplus electricity is available for anyone wanting to pay for it, and coal plants in particular are slow difficult and expensive to turn down, such that effectively the same coal is burned regardless of light bulb used.


Overall, people should be left to choose what light bulbs they want, which of course includes LEDs and being aware of personal savings that may be involved, in a reasonable time period if they are used sufficiently.