NZ fails to Ban The Bulb

Over the last few years, the phasing out and banning of domestic incandescent light bulbs has been the recipient of more that it's fair share of gesture politics and the latest news from New Zealand shows the danger of politicians not having the courage of their convictions and setting deadlines for action which exceed their tenure in power.

In New Zealand, the new energy and resources minister, Gerry Brownlee, has said that his government will not be honouring the pledge of the previous Labour government and phasing out the use of wasteful incandescent light bulbs.

Unfortunately, while arguing in favour of "consumer choice" Gerry Brownlee does not explain how every consumer is supposed to become sufficiently informed about the cost of wasting energy on the national economy, national security and global carbon emissions or how every individual can be expected to to accurately assess all of the costs and benefits to New Zealand of using more efficient technologies... or not.

In Ban The Bulb's opinion this government's populist defence of "consumer choice" really amounts to a massive failure to defend the national economy and the global environment.

Incandescent light bulbs have been reprieved.

Energy and Resources Minister Gerry Brownlee told Parliament yesterday he would not be going ahead with the previous Labour-led Government's plan to phase them out.

He said he was "lifting the ban" on traditional light bulbs, but Labour MPs said there had never been a ban and the intention had been to gradually replace them with new energy-efficient bulbs.

Mr Brownlee said the Government had "real concerns about telling people they have to move to energy-efficient light bulbs by decree.

"We are committed to energy efficiency in the home, and efficient lighting has an important role to play in helping us reduce the amount of energy we use.

"But this Government believes it is a matter of consumer choice."

Mr Brownlee said people needed good, credible information about different lighting options. Then they could decide for themselves what they wanted.

"Lifting the previous Government's ban on incandescent light bulbs simply means we are allowing their continued sale and I am confident the consumer trend to energy-efficient bulbs will continue," he said.

National used the light bulb issue during the election campaign as an example of Labour's "nanny state" mentality.

Labels: failure to act, New Zealand

Free bulbs switch on Ethiopians

Many developing countries cannot afford to build new power stations and Ethiopia has just copied the free hand out of energy saving light bulbs originally done in countries such as Cuba (May 06) and Venezuela (Nov 06).

Ethopians are rushing to get their hands on free energy saving light bulbs which are being handed out by a utility to stop power cuts.

Four million low-energy light bulbs are being given away in exchange for old-style incandescent ones by the Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation. Nearly all Ethiopia's electricity comes from hydro-power. But without rain the dams cannot fill and the lights go out.

The new bulbs will cut peoples' power bills and are supposed to last longer. The BBC's Elizabeth Blunt says the light bulb swap was in full swing when she visited the utility's offices in the capital Addis Ababa. But our correspondent says the snag is that when the new bulbs wear out, customers will find they cost about six times as much as the old ones to replace.

Labels: cuba, Ethiopia, free light bulbs, venezuela

Disappointingly weak EU light bulb ban

Although it is good news that the EU will be banning the sale of 100W incandescent light bulbs by September 2009, it is very disappointing that the new minimum energy performance standard for domestic light bulbs has been set at a very low level and will also take many years to achieve the levels of energy saving that are already possible with compact fluorescent lamps (65-80%)and LEDs (90%).

Under the terms that have been agreed today, it seems that the EU's light bulb manufacturers will be given until 2016 to phase out incandescent light bulbs using halogens elements, which offer only a 25% improvement on the energy performance of traditional light bulbs.

Ban The Bulb believes that the EU's governments should significantly improve on this deal and that far more should be done to bring LEDs into cheap and widespread use within 5 years.

Labels: total lack of ambition and urgency

EU negotiations... the latest news

Ban The Bulb has spoken to it's contact in Brussels and found out that the EU's Energy Commissioner, Andris Pielbalgs, should be holding a press conference at about 5pm local time, in order to outline the improvements in the energy performance of light bulbs that have been agreed by the EU's 27 nations.

This decision is subject to a qualified majority vote and will be revised within 5 years, so it is critically important that a clear signal is sent to the lighting industry that it needs to do more to phase out both incandescent light bulbs and halogens, and to bring LEDs to market.

The three main issues at the EU negotiations appear to be:

1) The time allowed to phase out incandescents. At the moment incandescents look doomed, but as though some of them will be allowed on the market until 2012. This is a rather leisurely deadline, and one which could almost certainly be tightened.

2) Nordic nations (including Finland and Denmark) are concerned that the timing and level of ambition for the phase out non-clear (frosted) glass light bulbs is tougher than for clear glass light bulbs because frosted bulbs can already be perfectly replaced by highly efficiently compact fluorescent lamps.

Apparently, the majority of nordic lamps are frosted and this might mean that Finland and Denmark want longer to make changes. This could result in the postponement of non-clear incandescent lamps being phased out.

3) The final date for standard halogens to be phased out. Halogens only offer a 25% improvement on the energy performance of traditional incandescent designs, but are currently not scheduled to be phased out before 2016.

This could mean that typical household lamps will still only need to be 25% more efficient than today in 8 years time, rather than the 90% more efficient that would be possible if CFLs and LEDs formed the new energy performance standard.

In general, it sounds as though the lighting industry is happy with the European Commissions proposals and this suggests to Ban The Bulb that the politicians are not being nearly tough enough on the industry.

As things stand, the lighting industry could flood the market with cheap halogens and kill off other more efficient alternatives, such as LEDs, if it wanted to; simply because this suited the industry's existing manufacturing capacity and business plans.

The industry could also re-open the standards in 5 years and lobby to keep them soft, thereby postponing the uptake of LEDs yet again and keeping consumer's energy bills unnecessarily high well into the future.

Ban The Bulb feels it is extremely important that within 5 years the new energy performance standard for domestic lights is set by LEDs, which offer a 90% energy saving, rather than by halogens which offer only a 25% improvement in energy performance.

If the EU doesn't want to show leadership and caves in to industry lobbying, perhaps President-Elect Obama will be stronger and force this necessary change.

Otherwise all of the grandiose statements about wanting to cut carbon emissions and energy use by 20% by 2020 or 80% by 2050 are nothing more than hot air.

With thanks to Edouard Toulouse and Germana Canzi for their help in the preparation of this update.

Labels: Andris Piebalgs, EU light bulb ban, halogens, LEDs

GE stops incandescent development, LEDs the future

Ban The Bulb's advocacy seems to have had a significant effect with GE announcing that they will end their development of incandescent light bulbs (in particular so-called "high efficiency incandescents") and will instead concentrate on LEDs.

This is a major breakthrough for the Ban The Bulb campaign.

Exactly what has gone on behind the scenes is pretty opaque, but there has been a large amount of manoeuvring by the lighting industry recently.

This article suggests that GE was the odd one out, but Ban The Bulb's memory is that Philips was the company that went it's own way and tried to frame the measures they wanted to see in Australia (announced by Malcolm Turnbull in Feb 2007).

There were definitely differences in the responses of the different manufacturers when this campaign published an article on the BBC News website in Feb 2006 and Australia later announced that it would be banning incandescent light bulbs by 2010.

I'm sure they'll all claim to have always wanted LEDs before too long...

Labels: Banning incandescents, GE, LEDs, Philips

EU light bulb ban imminent... but how ambitious?

After years of talking about phasing out light bulbs we will finally get a chance to see how ambitious our politicians will be when it comes for taking concrete action.

Tomorrow in Brussels senior representatives of the EU's 27 nations will vote on measures which will result in 100W and 60W incandescent light bulbs being phased out across the EU between 2011 and 2013.

The lighting industry is advocating a new type of incandescent light bulb which will use 25% less electricity than today's incandescents by 2013.

The Ban The Bulb energy efficiency campaign feels that this level of ambition is totally inadequate, given that substitute compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) using 65-80% less electricity and light emitting diodes (LEDs) using 90% less electricity (to produce the same amount of light) are already available.

LEDs are definitely the technology we should be aiming for, within 5 years, as they offer instant brightness, dimmability and contain no mercury.

LED alternatives to 40W, 60W and 100W floor and table lamp incandescent lights bulbs are already on sale and simply need to be made cheaper and more readily available as quickly as possible.

High quality CFLs used to cost approximately £5 when this campaign was set up in 2005, but Tesco now sells excellent designs of CFL for as little as 81p. The same economies of scale need to be applied to LEDs without delay and excuses.

If we cannot be ambitious with light bulbs how on earth are we going to make much more difficult items such as our cars and homes significantly more energy efficient.

President-Elect Obama has recent said that he is going to be tough on the US auto industry and demand improved energy efficiency.

The EU needs to be similarly tough on the world's existing light bulb manufacturers, which have patents, factories, profits and shareholders to protect and do not need to pay the electricity bills of the EU's 500 million consumers or to finance the 10 extra power stations needed to keep the EU's lights on if their preferred technology is used to define the energy performance standards for domestic lighting.

Please see the following documents for more detail:

Dr Matt Prescott's recent articles for BBC News Online

No time to dim efficiency ambitions (Nov 2008)

Shedding light on call to ban bulb (Apr 2006)

Light bulbs not such a good idea (Feb 2006)


Technical references:

Discussion paper on domestic lighting products Ecodesign for CF (Oct 08)

Working document on draft regulation on non-directional household lamps (Oct 08)

Position from Ban The Bulb (Oct 08) - sent to DEFRA, BERR, DECC, MTP and the EU's Energy Commissioner

Position from ECOS, EEB, ZMWG, CAN-Europe, INFORSE-Europe, Greenpeace and WWF (Mar 08)

Make the Switch : European Lamp Companies Federation (Nov 07)


Important political milestones for BTB campaign...

Energy efficiency high on Obama stimulus plan (Dec 08)

Brown and Cameron battle over green air travel and phasing out old-style light bulbs (Mar 07) - Gordon Brown

EU switches off our old lightbulbs (Mar 07) - Angela Merkel

Australia pulls plug on old bulbs (Feb 2007) - Malcolm Turnbull

How many legislators does it take to change a lightbulb? (Jan 2007) - Lloyd Levine

UK asks the EU to consider an EU-wide light bulb ban (July 2006) - Tony Blair

Campaign archive: 2005 - present

With thanks to Germana Canzi and Edouard Toulouse

Labels: Brussels, EU light bulb ban, EU27

LED replacements for long fluorescent tubes

A company called Illume is making LED tubes which are suitable as replacements for the long fluorescent tubes commonly used in shops and industrial locations.

They come in a range of lengths and brightnesses [including 600mm (6 watts), 1200mm (12 watts), 1200mm (15 watts) and 1200mm (18 watts)], cost from £32 - £79 and can produce either "cold white" or "warm white" light.



Traditional fluorescent tubes use approximately 45-70 watts of electricity and last around 20,000 hours, whilst the latest designs of LED tube are estimated to have lifetimes of 50,000 hours and use between 5-18 watts. The financial savings associated with using these lights therefore come from reducing electricity use by more than half and offering more than double the expected lifetime of an equivalent fluorescent tube.

Please see the Digital Display Systems website to find out more.

These LEDs allow businesses to qualify for the UK government's Enhanced Capital Allowance Scheme, which enables a business to claim 100% first-year capital allowances on qualifying plant and machinery (energy saving).

Businesses can write off the whole of the capital cost of their investment in these technologies against their taxable profits of the period during which they make the investment.

Labels: enhanced capital allowances, fluorescent tubes, LED tubes

No time to dim efficiency ambitions

BBC News Online : "Green Room" article, 11 Nov 2008


Leaders of EU nations will vote in December on measures to phase out the use of traditional incandescent light bulbs, explains Matt Prescott. But, in this week's Green Room, he says lobbying by the lighting industry could result in the 27-nation bloc dimming its ambitions on energy efficiency.

Allowing the lighting industry to decide how much they should improve the energy performance of their products is extremely unwise, bordering on scandalous
When I first set up the Ban The Bulb energy efficiency campaign and proposed the phased banning of traditional incandescent light bulbs, even my friends thought I was crazy.

Now, almost four years later, 30 countries have announced plans to phase out the use of these old fashioned appliances; China has announced plans to phase out the production of most of the world's incandescent light bulbs, and the major light bulb manufacturers have accepted that change is inevitable.

However, behind the scenes, the details associated with these public pronouncements remain to be converted into legally binding action, and a lot hinges on the votes that European governments will cast in Brussels on 8 December.

The lighting industry has said that it wants to be allowed to sell improved incandescent light bulbs, which use 25% less electricity than their traditional equivalents and would cut Europe's annual electricity use by the equivalent of two-and-a-half large power stations.

In my view, allowing the lighting industry to decide how much they should improve the energy performance of their products is extremely unwise, bordering on scandalous. It is akin to asking the world's banks to regulate themselves.

Manufacturers have patents, factories, markets and profits to protect and cannot be expected to decide, in an impartial fashion, what is technologically feasible or economically justifiable for the EU's 27 member countries and 500 million citizens.

It is therefore essential that our leaders protect the interests of society and the environment by deciding where they want us to be in five years time and what is possible, rather than settling for what suits the short-term, narrow interests of big business.

Shining examples

Compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) already offer energy savings of between 65% and 80%, and the best designs, in my opinion, need to form the basis for any minimum energy performance standard within the next three to five years for the majority of domestic light bulbs sold in the EU.

CFLs could save the EU up to 10 power stations' worth of electricity

Using the best designs of CFLs available today would allow the EU to cut its annual electricity use by an amount equivalent to 10 large power stations.

By contrast, allowing the use of improved incandescent light bulbs being promoted by the manufacturers would result in the Europe's carbon dioxide emissions being up to 53 million tonnes higher each year than if the CFL benchmark was adopted.

Based on the recent price for carbon emissions, this outcome would impose an unnecessary annual emissions cost of one billion euros (£800m) on the continent's electricity bills.

Using wasteful light bulbs also requires countries to pay for large coal imports and to have extra power stations available to provide electricity during periods of peak electricity demand.

At the household level, energy saving light bulbs can help to slash electricity bills. It now costs about one euro (£0.80) to buy a good quality CFL in the UK.

On average, this can be expected to use 15 euros (£12) less electricity each year for its lifetime of six or more years.

Feeling the heat

During its manufacture, each CFL does require about four times as much energy as a single incandescent lamp.

However, it then lasts six times longer and uses 65% - 80% less electricity throughout its 6,000-hour lifetime.

As a result, the manufacturing, replacement, running and carbon costs accumulated over the lifetime of a single CFL are all significantly lower than those associated with using many shorter-lived incandescent light bulbs.

On the down side, each CFL contains about 4-6mg of mercury. However, this mercury content can be safely and fully recycled, and there is no need for energy saving lamps to pose a risk to health or the environment.

By comparison, burning the extra coal needed to keep an incandescent light bulb working releases roughly three times more mercury directly into the atmosphere and poses a genuine risk wherever it ends up.

My preferred solution would be for the mercury content of CFLs to be reduced to 1-2mg and for every EU nation to introduce robust methods for recycling all of the hazardous substances found in homes.

Torch bearing

I also feel that EU governments should introduce minimum performance standards for the illumination produced by CFLs and ensure that only the best designs, which produce a warm, bright light within five seconds and emit no ultraviolet light, are allowed on the market.

I hope that our politicians will find the courage to do everything they can to bring into cheap and widespread use the high end of the energy efficient products

For the small proportion of household lamps that need to be used with dimmers, I would like to see light emitting diodes (LEDs) being brought into widespread and affordable use within five years.

LEDs offer energy savings of 90% and produce an instant bright illumination, contain no mercury and can be fully dimmed.

They also last for up to 50,000 hours, so do not need to be replaced for many, many years. Perhaps this is why there is reluctance among manufacturers to sell them.

I have not endorsed LEDs before, but they are now available as table and floor lamp substitutes for 40W, 60W and 100W incandescent bulbs, and I firmly believe that national governments should do everything in their power to create a massive market for LEDs.

Overall, I am delighted that EU leaders have decided to phase out traditional incandescent light bulbs.

However, I hope that our politicians will find the courage to do everything they can to bring into use the high end of the energy efficient products that are already available.

I am confident that much greater energy efficiency offers the most cost effective way to bring about a positive step change in our energy bills, carbon emissions and energy security.


Dr Matt Prescott is an environmental consultant and director of banthebulb.org, an online campaign encouraging greater energy efficiency, and founding co-ordinator of Energy Saving Day

The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website

Labels: BBC News Online, Green Room

European Commission : Position from Ban The Bulb

Summary

Ban The Bulb welcomes the efforts of the European Commission to improve the energy efficiency of the domestic lighting sector and believes that the implementation of ambitious energy efficiency standards will allow the EU to lead the world in efforts to tackle climate change.

Ban The Bulb wishes to propose the following measures, which have been designed to encourage the rapid refinement and uptake of the most energy efficient light bulb designs currently available:

Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) already offer energy savings of 65% - 80% and the best designs of CFL should form the basis for any minimum energy performance standard within the next 3-5 years for the majority of domestic light bulbs sold in the EU27.

LEDs already offer energy savings of 90%, instant bright light of a good quality and dimmability. The minimum energy performance standard for all domestic light bulbs should match and/or exceed LEDs within 5 years.

Exemptions to these minimum energy performance standards should only be made when an overwhelmingly strong technical, medical, practical or financial case has been made in an open, transparent and evidence-based fashion.

An ambitious energy performance standards for domestic lighting could save 86TWh of electricity per annum by 2020 whilst the least ambitious standards, supported by the lighting industry, equates to only 22TWh of electricity being saved by 2020.

If all of the excess electricity needed to power less efficient light bulbs were produced using coal-fired powered stations this would mean the annual release of an additional 53 million tonnes in CO2 emissions (830,000 tonnes CO2 per TWh x 64TWh).

Based on the present price of carbon dioxide per tonne (€20) on the EUETS this would equate to an annual opportunity cost of approximately €1 billion.

1. Incandescent light bulbs

Domestic incandescent light bulbs have a number of significant disadvantages.

These include:

(i) Very short lifetimes (1000 hours)
(ii) High replacement rates (6 – 15 units over the lifetime of a single CFL)
(iii) High embedded energy and resource costs over the lifetime of a single CFL
(iv) Domestic running costs 60% higher than CFLs (approx €15 each per annum)
(v) Higher carbon emissions via power stations
(vi) Mercury emissions, into the atmosphere, via coal power stations (3x higher)
(vii) An added burden to the electricity system during periods of peak demand
(viii) Requirement for greater installed capacity across the EU
(ix) Hot incandescent light bulbs can cause homes to catch fire

The lighting manufacturers have a vested interest in protecting their existing technologies, factories, market shares and profits at the expense of the energy bills of EU voters, EU-wide energy security and global impacts on the environment.

2. Energy performance criteria

Ban The Bulb would like to see energy performance standards determined in an open and transparent fashion. In particular, clarity is required in the following areas:

(i) The levels of energy performance that are to be achieved over x, y and z years
(ii) The domestic lighting technologies that will be phased out first (e.g. 60W and 100W screw and bayonet) and over time
(iii) The timescales required for supplies to meet demand for new products
(iv) The medical exemptions required for those that suffer from light sensitivity conditions such as lupus and how these exemptions should be implemented (e.g. via retailers or doctors).
(v) The specialist exemptions required and how these should be implemented (e.g. photographic or cooker lights)
(vi) The legislative and tax measures required to ensure that LEDs rapidly come down in price and are able to offer consumers 90%+ energy savings.

The manufacturers have investments to protect and should not be relied upon to provide objective assessments on the types of innovation and levels of supplies that can be achieved if markets for products offering high levels of energy performance were created.

3. User-orientated performance standards

Different makes and designs of CFL vary considerably in their light quality, energy performance, mercury content, UV radiation, build quality, compactness and lifetime.

It is important that the EU creates minimum standards and enforcement mechanisms for CFLs designed to ensure that all CFLs on sale in the EU meet the expectations of the end user.

The best CFL designs already offer a high level of energy performance and user experience, but it can be difficult for consumers to discriminate between good and bad CFLs. The dumping of poor quality CFLs will need to be pro-actively blocked by the usual trade and enforcement mechanisms. Consumer choice should be assisted by the use of clear and helpful energy labels, which may need to be recalibrated upwards.

4. Rationale for a high level of energy efficiency

Climate change

According to the available science, early and significant carbon emissions offer the best means of limit the negative social and environmental impacts of climate change and the economic costs associated with adaptation.

Energy security

With the EU’s supplies of oil and natural gas running out faster than expected and increased energy imports coming from Russia and the Middle East it makes sense to
reduce energy demand and to increase energy security and energy independence through the installation of efficient energy using products.

Economic efficiency and competitiveness

If the EU’s domestic light bulbs were more energy efficient this would make the European economy more efficient and competitive.

If it proves impossible to introduce bold energy performance standards for domestic light bulbs it is unlikely that other countries and technologies will achieve significant improvements in energy efficiency.

China

Most light bulbs are now produced in China and it unlikely that light bulb production will return to the EU.

China has announced plans to phase out the manufacture of incandescent light bulbs and can be expected to continue climbing up the technological and value chains.

Peak electricity demand

Lights tend to be on during periods of peak electricity demand and to play a major part in determining the total amount of installed capacity of electricity generators that all EU nations require. As a result, domestic lights tend to use some of the most expensive electricity produced on a daily basis.

Fuel poverty

With 500 million people in the EU facing increased energy bills, removing wasteful energy use through the implementation of ambitious energy performance standards for domestic light bulbs would help to reduce fuel poverty and to accelerate the recovery from the present economic recession.

5. Overview of Ban The Bulb proposals

CFL and LED based minimum standards

CFLs already offer 65% - 80% energy savings whilst dimmable LEDs already offer 90% energy savings for table and floor lamps when compared to equivalent domestic incandescent light bulbs.

Non-dimmable designs (90% of the market) : next 3-5 years

CFLs should represent the minimum energy performance standard for the majority of domestic lights, which do not need to be dimmed within 3-5 years.

Dimmable light bulbs (10% of the market) : next 3-5 years

LEDs should represent the minimum energy performance standard for all dimmable domestic light bulbs within 5 years.

The niche requirement for light bulbs to be dimmed should not be allowed to hold back energy performance across the entire domestic lighting sector and equivalent dimmable technologies should have no purchase price advantage over CFLs.

If dimmable lights are to be permitted to make up a minor proportion of the lighting market they should offer the best energy performance possible today (e.g. a 45% saving relative to incandescents).

Halogen lamps with an infra-red coating (Class B), which can be dimmed and offer 45% energy savings, should only be allowed where CFLs are inappropriate and should be replaced by dimmable LEDs within the next 5 years.

All domestic light bulbs (100% of the market) : within 5 years

LEDs should provide the minimum energy performance standard for all domestic lighting within 5 years.

Supporting legislation

The EU should consider using all of the means at its disposal to ensure that the diversity and volume of LEDs on the market is significantly increased and that purchase price of LED-based lamps is reduced significantly.

6. Light bulb designs

CFLs : minimum energy performance within 3-5 years

High-quality CFLs should represent the minimum energy performance standard for the majority of easily substituted domestic lighting.

EU standards for CFLs should ensure that all CFLs on sale in the EU offer a good quality of light, are well made, produce very low levels of UV radiation and offer long lifetimes (6000 hours+).

EU standards should favour encapsulated CFL designs and spiral or stick CFLs which are certified to emit very little or no UV in order to remove the need for medical exemptions.

Any domestic light bulb designs offering energy performance below that already available from CFLs should be eliminated within 5 years.

Halogen lamps with infra-red coating (B-class) offering a 45% energy saving, and are not protected by patents, so should be used where dimmers and timers are essential and CFLs are not appropriate.

Halogen lamps with infra-red coating (Class B) : limited use for 3-5 years

Halogen lamps with infra-red coating (Class B) offer a 45% energy saving compared to incandescents, and dimmability, but should not be adopted as the new minimum energy performance standard for the majority of the domestic lighting sector or invested in further by the major manufacturers.

The light bulbs contain technologies that are not protected by patents, so should be used for roles where dimming is essential and/or CFLs are not appropriate. This technology is available to all manufacturers, but should only be allowed until dimmable LEDs become more widely available within 5 years.

LEDs : minimum energy performance within 5 years

LEDs are already available which are suitable for decorative table and floor uses and provide fully dimmable, no mercury content, instant brightness alternatives to 40W, 60W and 100W incandescents. The development of LEDs needs to be accelerated.

EU efforts should be focused on joining up its legislative, tax and market powers in ways that to ensure that LEDs are made in large numbers and become much cheaper within the next 5 years.

5W LEDs are already available as table and floor lamp substitutes to 75W incandescents. These offer instant brightness, dimmability, no mercury content, 50,000 hour lifetimes (50 times longer than incandescents), solid state resistance to knocks and vibration, intense white light, 90% energy savings.

13W LEDs are already available as table and floor lamp substitutes to 100W incandescents. These offer instant brightness, dimmability, no mercury content, 50,000 hour lifetimes, solid state resistance to knocks and vibration, intense white light, 85% energy savings.

Halogen lamps filled with Xenon gas (Class C) : very limited use for 3-5 years

Halogen lamps filled with Xenon gas (Class C) are convenient for the light bulb manufacturers, but with only a 25% improvement in energy performance do not offer adequate energy savings to be a worthwhile substitute for CFLs or LEDs beyond 3-5 years.

It is unlikely that energy efficiency standards will be revisited on a regular basis so this technology should be leap-frogged.

Other technologies, which are already available, offer dimmability, similar light qualities and better energy performance and offer a better minimum standard.

7. Lifetime costs of inefficient technologies

The lifetime costs of energy using products wasting 65% - 80% of their energy should be calculated. At present, lighting represents 10% - 15% of household electricity use and these percentages of demand could be cut to 1% - 3%. This energy saving would save the EU billons of euros on an annual basis.

The positive effects of reduced electricity demand on energy security, energy bills and the carbon emission produced by the EU’s 500 million residents should also be calculated and taken into account when deciding the costs and benefits of applying ambitious energy efficiency targets to light bulbs.

8. National Dispensation : Italy

It has been argued that Italy will find it more difficult than other nations to change the types of light bulb it uses due to the dominant type of light fitting used in this country. If this is true, then Italy could be granted a temporary dispensation from the timetable used by the rest of the EU27.

Italy should be granted no more than 1-2 years extra to act and informed of the higher energy costs it will incur by deferring greater energy efficiency. These costs should also be made public. Every effort should also be made to explore how adaptors, modified light bulbs and installation grants could be used speed up uptake in countries such as Italy.

9. Mercury / Recycling

CFLs currently contain 4-6mg of mecury and this should be reduced to 2mg within 5 years.

Mercury is a hazardous substance and covered by the EU’s RoHS Directive. The costs of recycling CFLs are currently added to the purchase price and this can be counter productive in terms of encouraging greater energy efficiency.

The most effective recycling systems that enable consumers, retailers, local governments and national government to play their roles in improving the recycling of hazardous household substances should be found and used across the EU.

10. Global production capacity

China produces 3 billion CFLs per annum and should be required to improve the quality of imports to the EU and helped to shift production towards LEDs. The phasing in of new minimum standards as appropriate new designs become available should allow supplies to match demand over several years. The total replacement of domestic light will take over 10 years and allow manufacturers to diversify their lighting products and markets.

11. VAT reduced from 17.5% to 5%

Across the EU, VAT for energy saving light bulbs that match and/or exceed the energy performance of CFLs should be reduced from 17.5% to 5%.

12. Energy labels

At present, energy labels can be hidden, small and impossible for the non-expert to understand.

Energy labels should be made simpler to understand and more useful to consumers.

In particular, energy labels should highlight running costs, energy consumption, UV radiation levels and the mercury content associated with each make and design of light bulb.

Actual and/or relative running costs for each light bulb design, compared to a standard incandescent lamp, should be highlighted on packaging.

13. Fuel poverty

Light bulb manufacturers should be encouraged to invest research and development and helped to invest in significant manufacturing capacity for the most energy efficient light bulb. The EU should not subsidise any light bulbs designs less efficient than CFLs.

The economies of scale offer the best route to cheap LEDs and it is essential that high quality CFLs and cheap LEDs are brought to market as quickly as possible.

Efforts to distribute energy saving light bulbs for free should be considered but it would be more effective to remove wasteful designs from the market and to subsidise energy efficient designs in shops.

14. Building Regulations : Lumens per watt per m2

The way in which light bulbs vary and large number of halogen spotlights can be extremely profligate in their collective energy use, whilst being relatively efficient on an individual basis.

As a result, it may be necessary for the EU to update building regulations and require lights to be used in a way that offers a minimum number of lumens per watt per m2.

15. Delivering on the ambition of the EU’s 20/20/20 plan

It is important that the EU puts in place world leading energy efficiency legislation and retains a focus on reducing overall energy demand and carbon emissions by 20% by 2020 and shows that the EU is serious about making full use of the energy efficient technologies that are already available.

Other countries are highly likely to copy the energy efficiency measures put in place by the EU and a rare opportunity exists for the EU to help the 500 million people to save money on their energy bills and to show leadership to the world.

Position from Ban The Bulb

on the EC Working Document
on possible ecodesign requirements for general lighting equipment

In the context of Directive 2005/32/EC establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy using products.

Labels: Ban The Bulb position, CFLs, halogens, infra-red, LEDs, minimum energy performance standards, xenon

HPA : Precautionary Advice for users of Unencapulated CFLs

The UK's Health Protection Agency (HPA) has conducted research into the levels of ultraviolet light produced by compact fluorescent lamps and found that some energy saving compact fluorescent lights can emit ultraviolet radiation at levels that, under certain conditions of use, can result in exposures higher than guideline levels.

As a precautionary step the HPA has advised householders that unencapsulated CFLs (recognised by their thin spiral or angular tubes) should not be used within 1 foot (30cm) of the user for more than 1 hour.

Encapsulated CFLs and larger long tube "strip lighting" commonly used in offices, do not produce significant quantities of ultraviolet and can be used on ceilings without any special precautionary measures.



The Agency's Chief Executive Justin McCracken said, "This is precautionary advice and people should not be thinking of removing these energy saving light bulbs from their homes. We are advising people to avoid using the open light bulbs for prolonged close work until the problem is sorted out and to use encapsulated bulbs instead. In other situations where people are not likely to be very close to the bulbs for any length of time, all types of compact fluorescent light bulbs are safe to use."

The Ban The Bulb campaigns has always called for evidence-based medical and specialist exemptions to any ban of inefficient incandescent light bulbs and welcomes the HPA's research and their sensible and pragmatic precautionary advice.

It is to be hoped that the manufacturers and EU will act the HPA's advice in terms of improving the design of unencapsulated CFLs.

It is also to be hoped that forthcoming EU legislation will promote the accelerated uptake of encapsulated CFLs and LED alternatives that offer a broad spectrum of visible light, dimmability and better energy efficiency but are currently more expensive than CFLs.

The Ban The Bulb campaign feels that light sensitive people suffering from Lupus and other similar conditions should be offered a medical exemption allowing them to continue using incandescent light bulbs or preferably to access subsidised LEDs which are far more energy efficient than traditional light bulbs.


News coverage:

The Guardian
BBC News Online
The Daily Telegraph
The Daily Mail

note: The HPA's precautionary advice says encapsulated CFLs and long tubes are perfectly save to use and does not conclude that CFLs cause cancer or should stop being used by anyone who is not light sensitive.

LEDs are a much better solution than so called "high efficiency" incandescents which use twice as much electricity as CFLs and are currently being promoted by light bulb manufacturers, as a way of protecting their investments in existing factories.

............................

HPA Press release : 9 October 2008

Emissions from compact fluorescent lights

New research by the Health Protection Agency has shown that some energy saving compact fluorescent lights can emit ultraviolet radiation at levels that, under certain conditions of use, can result in exposures higher than guideline levels. The Agency and Government Departments are calling on the European Union, relevant product standards bodies and the lighting industry to consider how product standards for lights can be tightened up.

Given its research findings, the Agency is recommending some precautionary measures for the use of certain types of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). The Agency's view is that open (single envelope) CFLs shown in Fig. 1 should not be used where people are in close proximity - closer than 30 cm or 1 ft - to the bare light bulb for over 1 hour a day. The Agency advises that for such situations open CFLs should be replaced by the encapsulated (double envelope) type shown in Fig. 2. Alternatively, the lamp should be moved so that it is at least 30 cm or 1 ft away.

The Agency's Chief Executive Justin McCracken said, "This is precautionary advice and people should not be thinking of removing these energy saving light bulbs from their homes. We are advising people to avoid using the open light bulbs for prolonged close work until the problem is sorted out and to use encapsulated bulbs instead. In other situations where people are not likely to be very close to the bulbs for any length of time, all types of compact fluorescent light bulbs are safe to use."

Not all open (single envelope) fluorescent light bulbs have significant UVR emissions but if people are in very close proximity to some of them, the exposure to bare skin is like being outside in direct sunlight. For example, Agency scientists found that when very close (2 cm, less than 1 inch) to some open CFLs, the UVR level can be equivalent to that experienced outside in the UK on a sunny day in the summer and so some precaution is warranted. When further away (over 30 cm or 1 ft), the UVR level is much lower and less than being outside on a sunny day in winter, which is not a concern.

Encapsulated (double envelope) compact fluorescent light bulbs (see Fig. 2), which look similar to traditional domestic light bulbs, do not emit significant amounts of UVR. The larger long tube "strip lighting" design fluorescent lights, commonly used in offices, workplaces and homes for many years, can also be used on ceilings without any special precautionary measures.

The precautionary advice from the Agency is interim advice. The Agency's study has stimulated research into the problem by others and the Agency may issue further advice when more information is available. As a result of the Agency's work the Government is pressing the EU to take account of the findings in future European legislation.

Exposure to UVR can cause particular problems for people suffering from some medical conditions, including Lupus. The Agency, Government and the lighting industry have met with patient groups to give advice on the use of compact fluorescent light bulbs and the availability of new technologies for low energy lighting. In addition, the Agency's work has been taken into account by an EC scientific committee looking into the issue of light sensitivity. This committee published its opinion last Friday, 3 October 2008.

Press Enquiries: Contact the HPA Chilton Press Office on (01235) 822744 / 822745 / 822876 / 822737.

E-mail: chilton.pressoffice@hpa.org.uk


Precautionary advice: Energy saving compact fluorescent lights

This factsheet provides some precautionary advice about the use of compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) in the home.

CFLs and ultraviolet radiation

The Health Protection Agency has carried out research which shows that some energy saving light bulbs emit ultraviolet radiation which could, under certain conditions, expose people above recommended guideline levels.

As an interim precautionary measure, until the problem has been solved, the Agency is advising that some types should not be used closer than 30cm (1 ft) for long periods of time.

If you have energy saving compact fluorescent lights in your home you don’t need to worry unless you are using a lamp containing one of the open (single envelope) bulbs shown in figure 1 closer to your skin than 30cm (1 ft) for more than an hour a day.

If you do need a lamp this close for a prolonged period then we suggest you change the bulb and use a low energy bulb of the encapsulated (double envelope) type shown in figure 2.

Alternatively, simply move the lamp until it is at least 30cm (1 ft) away.

Both types of bulb are fine for any use further away than 30cm (1 ft).

This is precautionary advice and people should not be thinking of removing these energy saving
light bulbs from their homes. For both children and adults 30cm (1 ft) is a safe distance from the compact fluorescent light bulb.

Light sensitivity

People who suffer from Lupus and other light sensitive conditions may be specifically affected by the emissions from compact fluorescent lights. They have to be very careful about their exposure to sunlight, so also need to be cautious about their use of compactFigure 1. Open bulb Figure 2. Encapsulated bulb

Labels: HPA, light sensitive, lupus, medical exemption, ultraviolet, UV

EU considers VAT cut on energy saving light bulbs

Two years after the Ban The Bulb campaign originally proposed that the VAT applied to energy saving light bulbs should be reduced from 17.5% to 5%, the British and French governments have proposed EU-wide measures to reduce VAT for energy saving goods, which look like coming into force in all of the EU's 27 countries.

The Ban The Bulb campaign was orginally told by both the EU's tax office and DEFRAthat such a move was impossible, due to the complexity of re-opening VAT arrangements, so takes some pride in having pushed for this significant development.

Courtesy of EuActiv

Heads of state and government from the EU’s 27 member states agreed to consider a Franco-British proposal to cut value-added tax (VAT) on certain environmentally-friendly goods, such as energy efficient light bulbs and insulation materials.

The plan to change the EU’s tax rules – first pushed for by UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy in July 2007 – initially looked doomed to failure, due to a lack of support from other nations.

Yet, the final conclusions from the Spring Summit meeting, released on 14 March, invite the Commission to "examine areas where economic instruments, including VAT rates, can have a role to play to increase the use of energy-efficient goods and energy-saving materials" - a feat appararently achieved thanks to Brown's intense lobbying of other EU leaders.

According to him, products that could benefit from a reduced VAT rate of 5%, rather than the current minimum of 15%, include cars with reduced CO2 emission, insulation materials, efficient light bulbs and energy-efficient domestic appliances.

The move came as leaders restated their commitment to cutting greenhouse emissions and combating global warming (EurActiv 17/03/08).

However, the real test will come once the Commission – generally in favour of a greater harmonisation of VAT rates and the use of taxes as a tool for "greening" the EU economy – presents its new VAT plans in the summer.

They will require the unanimous backing of all 27 EU member states. Yet, any change in VAT rates across the EU remains a very sensitive issue, with many countries fearing the move could make them lose out on vast revenues generated by their VAT.

Another issue will be that of selecting which products are to be included in the list, with some saying a static list will not work, as technology evolves so fast that what is energy-efficient today won't be tomorrow.

Positions:

"I think people have been persuaded by the argument that we should look at this very carefully," said UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, after the meeting, insisting the statement made by leaders on VAT was a sign of "substantial progress" on the issue.

"VAT is a uniquely European tax. Europe has now got an energy policy to cut carbon emissions […] If - whether it be lightbulbs, or fridges or household goods generally, or whether it be the insulation materials that make for more energy efficient homes - if we can cut the rates of VAT, then I believe that will be a good thing for Europe," he said.

"Over the next few months I think other countries will join the debate that France and Britain have already started," he added.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he was "very satisfied" that green VAT was mentioned in the summit conclusions, although he conceded that the debate was far from over and that a number of countries remained opposed.

"We have not taken the decision - not yet - but the Council is asking the Commission to reflect and make proposals on the matter. You know that [discussions on] reduced VAT are a hell of a fight, so we are not there yet. But I can see more density in the Council’s communications. When you recall the rigidity of debates on the issue of VAT, this is an event.

While green NGOs are generally favourable to such VAT reductions to support the purchase of energy-efficient products, industry is divided on the question. According to t he European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), the current VAT rules create a "perverse incentive in favour of energy consumption, which conflicts with the goals of the EU in terms of energy and environmental policy". But, the European association of household appliance manufacturers (CECED) cautioned against any reduction of VAT rates to promote the uptake of energy-efficient goods. It said this would "lower the value of the product in the eyes of the consumer […] contrary to the signal we should be sending out, which is that energy efficiency has a value".
Next steps:

* Summer 2008: Commission due to bring forward new legislative proposals on harmonising EU VAT rates EU to consider VAT cuts on green goods

Current EU rules on value-added tax (VAT), spelled out in the 2006 VAT Directive external Pdf external , specify that member states must subject supplies of goods and services to a rate of at least 15%.

However, they also allow countries to apply reduced rates (never less than 5%) in a broad range of areas deemed essential, like medicines, or labour-intensive services, including renovation of private dwellings, cleaning and hairdressing (EurActiv 27/07/06).

While reduced rates for energy consumption are also allowed to ensure poorer households have access to energy, social considerations rather than 'green' objectives have traditionally driven the selection of items on the list.

The EU executive is due to bring forward new legislative proposals on VAT rates in the summer of 2008 with a view to putting some order to this highly disparate and complex VAT structure and create some additional certainty for businesses and consumers.

Labels: 17.5% VAT, 5% VAT, condoms, energy efficiency, VAT

China : co-ordinated efforts to make CFLs 90% cheaper

The China Daily has published a report which says that National Development and Reform Commission has established a subsidy for the makers of energy saving light bulbs which will reduce the cost of 150 million compact fluorescent lamps by 2010.

Additional subsidies by Beijing's municipal government and district governments mean that CFLs will soon be available in Beijing for only 10% of their original cost.

Energy-saving light bulbs do save energy, but many residents refuse to use them simply because they are several times more expensive than the traditional versions. They do not see the long-term benefits of saving energy, focusing instead on the bulbs' higher up-front costs.

Still, people really cannot be blamed for this situation. They need to be persuaded to see the long-term benefits of adopting such technology.

A new scheme set up by the National Development and Reform Commission to subsidize the makers of energy-saving light bulbs will cut the prices of such bulbs in half, bringing them to a level that consumers will be able to accept.

It is estimated that the price cuts will unleash the sale of 150 million energy-efficient light bulbs to residents and working units in the remaining three years of the 11th-Five-Year Plan period (2006-10). As a result, carbon dioxide emissions are projected to fall by 29 million tons.

The program is a great idea indeed. It will not only help the country hit its goal of cutting energy consumption per unit of GDP by 20 percent and reducing polluting emissions by 10 percent by the end of 2010, but it will also support the central government's plan to return money to taxpayers in the form of benefits.

Meanwhile, Beijing's municipal government will subsidize an additional 30 percent worth of price cuts, and district governments will contribute another 10 percent, making energy-saving light bulbs just a tenth of their original cost.

Beijing will implement the scheme on trial basis in its downtown West District, with the goal of getting all families use the bulbs. The authorities hope the cheap prices will bring this target within easy reach.

Beijing has undoubtedly set a good example for the rest of the country. It is hoped that other provinces and cities will follow suit.

In a country with a population of 1.3 billion people, getting every single person to voluntarily take part in the campaign to save energy will have a huge impact on the amount of resources consumed and therefore the amount of pollution produced.

Looked at from this perspective, the plan to put energy-saving light bulbs in every home should represent a massive effort on the part of the public to protect the environment.

Labels: Beijing, cheaper, China, low energy lamps, subsidies

The Sun: light bulb distribution project a big success

In a high innovative collaboration which involved Scottish and Southern Energy, Tesco and CoolNRG, the UK's biggest newspaper, The Sun, has distributed 4 million energy saving light bulbs in a single day.

Their special offer was heavily promoted for the week leading up to the distribution of light bulbs last Saturday.

This is one of the best examples in the world of a media organisation using its ability to communicate with large numbers of people to explain the benefits of using energy saving light bulbs and helping ordinary people to become actively involved in efforts to tackle climate change.

Congratulations to The Sun for doing something different, which was such a huge success!

Their innovation even helped them to increase their circulation by 10% to 4 million. This isn't anything to be sniffed at, especially in an era of declining newspaper circulations.

This is how the Media Guardian reported on what happened:

Saturday's edition of the Sun, which offered readers two free green lightbulbs, was a promotional success, boosting circulation to nearly 4m copies.

Sales soared by 408,000 copies compared with the previous Saturday after the Sun offered readers two free energy-saving lightbulbs, which they could pick up at newsagents and supermarkets selling the paper.

On Saturday the Sun normally sells in the region of 3.5m copies, but Saturday's sale was 3,908,000.

"We practically sold out," one Sun executive said. "We are gobsmacked."

The Sun turned half of its front page green for the promotion, which offered the eco-friendly lightbulbs to readers who bought the paper at more than 4,000 independent newsagents and stores including Tesco, Asda, WH Smith, Sainsbury's, Somerfield and Morrisons.

"Help save the world - and £13 into the bargain," the paper told readers, saying that the £4 pack of light bulbs, provided by Southern Electric, could lead to power bill savings of £9 annually for each reader.

The Sun also offered readers the chance to win an eco-friendly Toyota Prius Hybrid.

Last July, when the Mail on Sunday gave away Prince's new unreleased CD, Planet Earth, the paper sold an extra 600,000 copies, hitting a circulation of 2,800,846.

But the following week it lost most of those extra sales, selling only 31,000 copies above its base sale the week before the giveaway.

Last weekend the Daily Mail attempted a spoiler, offering readers two free energy saving bulbs "worth £6".

But the Mail failed to put in place a distribution deal and readers had to send for their bulbs in the post.

The Sun's promotion could not have been better timed to impress News International's new boss, James Murdoch, who arrived at the company from BSkyB in December.

Earlier this month Murdoch pledged to make News International carbon neutral.

Labels: CoolNRG, Scottish and Southern Energy, The Sun

Migraines, rashes, peer-reviewed science?

Dear BBC,

I am very disappointed that you have not asked for any peer-reviewed science to support the claims that compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) "worsen rashes" or "cause migraines".

These are very big and broad anecdotal claims, which have not been substantiated scientifically. Yet your headlines create the clear impression that the views expressed by individuals, interest groups and 'experts' can be treated as though they were robust statements of fact.

I run the Ban The Bulb campaign (www.banthebulb.org) and have asked for carefully enforced evidence-based medical exemptions for two years (please see my campaign goals), yet I must report that I have not found, or been sent, any science which backs up the claims made by migraine sufferers.

It is well known that migraines can be caused by stress, food and daylight, so saying that CFLs are responsible for light-sensitive medical conditions, while ignoring all of the other everyday triggers is a significant claim to make and grossly unscientific.

It would not be difficult to conduct experiments which compared the effects of CFLs on control and experimental groups as part of a properly designed medical trial and to publish the results in the form of a peer-reviewed article within a credible journal.

Similarly, the claims that rashes are worsened by CFLs assumes that someone is using very outdated fluorescent tubes. Fortunately the technologies incorporated into a CFL have moved on since they were first made available in large numbers, over 30 years ago.

The Ban The Bulb campaign has asked for better information on the boxes of CFLs and for better procedures to recycle the 4-6mg of mercury contained within each lamp ever since the campaign was established (in Feb 2005) so I appreciate your highlighting of this issue.

Overall, however, I wish that you had applied the same rigour and sceptism to these medical claims as you have devoted to interrogating the science available for climate change.

Please see my articles for BBC News Online's Green Room if you want to find out about the positive environmental benefits of using low energy light bulbs, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas and mercury emissions into the atmosphere or why 30 countries have now agreed to phase out
the use of incandescent light bulbs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4667354.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4922496.stm

Yours sincerely,

Dr Matt Prescott
Director, Ban The Bulb
www.banthebulb.org

Even the Today Programme enjoyed a good kick at the erstwhile low energy light bulb...

Labels: BBC, lack of peer-reviewed science, migraines, rashes

Letter to Editor of The Guardian : Lionel Shriver column

Ban The Bulb has sent the following letter to the Editor of The Guardian following the publication of an article by a columnist called Lionel Shriver.

Dear Sir,

I am writing as a result of the column published by Lionel Shriver on Thursday 3 January, 2008.

Having successfully proposed the banning of incandescent light bulbs as an easy first step in our efforts to reduce the waste of energy, cut carbon emissions and save money I was very disappointed that The Guardian decided to publish so many unfair and ill-informed comments.

I understand that Lionel was only writing a frivolous and light-hearted column, but I still feel that it was extremely harmful of your newspaper to suggest that there are no compact fluorescent lamps that could produce a decent quality of light and that it was a good idea to stockpile wasteful incandescent light bulbs.

Lionel was right when she said that a 20 watt compact fluorescent lamp (CFLs) takes more energy (4kWh) to make than an equivalent incandescent light bulb (1kWh). However, she failed to mention that a CFL also lasted 6-15 times longer (6000-15000 hours) and used 80 watts less electricity for every moment of it's life.

In addition, a good quality CFL, with pleasant light properties and a high level of build quality and performance, could save its owner £45 - £130 of electricity over it's lifetime while only costing 60p - £4.00 more to buy.

Please see the following review of different designs of compact fluorescent lamp, which I recently wrote for your own newspaper.

As with all things if you buy a cheap CFL, which relies on basic and old technologies, you might not get the performance you would like. This does not mean that better and more aesthetically pleasing CFLs are not available.

The mercury recycling issue associated with CFLs does indeed need to be more adequately addressed by retailers and city councils, but the excess electricity used to power an incandescent releases almost three times more mercury into the atmosphere than the 4mg contained within a CFL. At least with a CFL the mercury is contained and the option of recycling exists.

Lionel was also right to say that there are reasons to be concerned by the lack of detail and urgency in the UK government's and the EU's proposals to phase out and ban incandescent light bulbs.

If light bulbs bans cannot be coherently implemented in a rapid and successful fashion how are we ever going to phase out any of the bigger and more problematic technologies which also waste vast amounts of energy unnecessarily?

Personally, I am extremely worried by the lighting industry's calls for 10+ years to achieve the 60-70% energy savings which are already possible with today's CFLs (and which I might add will shortly be beaten by LEDs).

The manufacturers have invested in high-efficiency incandescents which use 30% less electricity than today's incandescents and understandably they want to see a return on this investment, but this does not mean we should settle for half the energy savings that are already possible.

I would therefore have liked to have seen Lionel use her public platform to call for technology neutral performance criteria which allowed CFLs to become the new minimum standard.

If this was the case that there can be little doubt that plenty of new and better lighting technologies would be developed and used within 3-5 years.

Incandescents were invented over 120 years ago, and could be replaced by many superior technologies if only the right regulations and financial incentives were put in place.

Saying that all CFLs are rubbish and that there are no decent alternatives to incandescents is factually incorrect and could slow the uptake of the many energy efficient technologies, which the latest climate change science tells us need to be brought to market as soon and widely as possible.

As things stand, the proposed domestic light bulb bans are going to be phased in over several years and it will cost billions more to produce extra electricity needed to continue powering ever more incandescents and halogen spot lights, by building new power stations, than it will
to change the small proportion of the country's energy guzzling light fittings which cannot accommodate CFLs or LEDs.

I haven't even attempted to calculate costs associated with the impacts of climate change or our need to secure energy supplies from some of the most unstable countries and regions in the world, but these costs definitely shouldn't be ignored by those who say they cannot be bothered to
change their light bulbs.

Until a light bulb ban was proposed and defended on hard-headed technological, economic and scientific grounds many people had the same prejudices as Lionel.

To date, over 30 countries (including the members of the EU, the US, China and Australia) have had a look at the available lighting technologies and decided that the case for the modest and painless banning of domestic incandescent light bulbs stacks up.

The UK's ban of incandescents will reduce annual carbon dioxide emissions by 2-3 million tonnes, similarly the EU's annual emissions will be reduced by 23 million tonnes while the Chinese government's decision to stop manufacturing 70% of the world's incandescent light bulbs will reduce the world's annual carbon emissions by even more.

I sincerely hope that you will consider balancing Lionel's personal comments by highlighting some of the ways in which CFLs and other energy saving technologies could become more widely used and, with the minimum of sacrifice, play a significant part in our efforts to tackle
climate change.

Warmest regards

Matt

Dr Matt Prescott
Director, Ban The Ban
www.banthebulb.org

Labels: Lionel Shriver, The Guardian

UK plans to phase out 150W, 100W, 60W : update

In September 2007 the UK's retailers agreed to stop replacing their stock of 150W incandescent light bulbs in Jan 2008, so I thought it might be a good idea to post exactly what was announced by the UK government and the country's retailers following a collaboration with the big energy utilities.

In summary, in Jan 2008, we can expect to see the retailers voluntarily stopping the replacement of 150W domestic incandescents.

Assuming all goes well at the UK and EU levels, 100W incandescent will then stop being sold in Jan 2009, 60W incandescents will stop being sold in 2010, and the more difficult to replace designs of light bulb will be given longer to cease being sold.

Binding EU-wide ban proposals are due to be tabled in 2009 and then expected to start coming into force during 2011 or 2012.

NEWS RELEASE
Ref: 328/07
Date: 27 September 2007

Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR
Out of hours telephone 020 7270 8960
Energy guzzling lightbulbs phase out to start next year

The most energy-guzzling light bulbs in Britain will start disappearing from shop shelves early next year as part of efforts to cut CO2 emissions, Secretary of State for the Environment Hilary Benn said today.

This voluntary initiative, which is being led by major retailers and energy suppliers, will see energy efficient light bulbs replace their least efficient equivalents on shop shelves over the next four years.

Its aim is to save up to 5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year by 2012 from UK electricity generation – the equivalent to the carbon emissions of a typical 1 Giga Watt coal fired power station.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced in March, while Chancellor of the Exchequer, his aim for the UK to be one of the first countries to phase out inefficient light bulbs and set an ambitious target date to achieve that by the end of 2011, ahead of possible actions by the EU to ban these products altogether.

Secretary of State Hilary Benn said:

"Britain is leading the way in getting rid of energy-guzzling light bulbs and helping consumers reduce their carbon footprint. Choosing energy saving light bulbs can help tackle climate change, and also cut household bills, with each bulb saving up to £60 over its lifetime.

"I am delighted that major companies have said they are prepared to help deliver this ambitious timetable and offer products which will help their own customers play their part in combating climate change.

"But there are many more energy hungry gadgets on sale in shops that waste too much energy. That's why I want to see today's initiative widened. I want to see more retailers, manufacturers and service providers taking action to phase out the least efficient products from their ranges, for example, certain set top boxes and TVs, and so help offer greener choices to their customers."

Kevin Hawkins, Director General of the British Retail Consortium said:

"Retailers are committed to reducing their carbon footprint and play an active role in helping consumers reduce their own environmental impact. This is just the latest in a number of initiatives in which retailers are helping to shape consumer habits through the promotion
of energy saving products. We look forward to working closely with Government and manufacturers in the lead up to the 2011 deadline to ensure the supply of energy saving light bulbs matches demand, and that they become a viable alternative to conventional light bulbs for consumers of all incomes"

Keven Verdun, Chief Executive of the Lighting Association said:

'The UK lighting suppliers strongly support the Government's ambition in this initiative. For many years the European lamp industry has promoted the benefits of phasing out energy inefficient light bulbs. In June 2007 the industry presented its own proposals for EU legislation to phase out inefficient light bulbs across the whole of Europe, commencing 2009. We welcome the positive support of governments for this transition to more efficient lighting technologies which we believe can make a substantial contribution to reducing our energy consumption and CO2 emissions."

Philip Sellwood, Chief Executive of the Energy Saving Trust said:

"We fully support the idea of phasing out inefficient lighting in favour of energy efficient light-bulbs. In most homes, lighting accounts for 10 – 15% of the electricity bill and UK households currently use £1.8 billion worth of electricity every year on lighting. An energy saving light bulb can last up to 10 times longer than a non-efficient version. Just one energy saving bulb could save up to £7 a year, fit all the lights in your house with energy saving
bulbs and you could save around £600 over the lifetime of the bulbs. If everyone in the UK installed three energy saving lightbulbs, we would save enough energy to power all the UK's street lighting for a year."

Duncan Sedgwick, Chief Executive of the Energy Retail Association, said:

"Britain's major energy suppliers welcome this move and are committed to distributing low energy light bulbs to households across the country over this period. This is building on the 43 million low energy light bulbs that they have already distributed through their current energy efficiency commitment."

Energy saving compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) can help reduce carbon dioxide emissions and contribute to tackling climate change because they use only a fifth to a quarter of the electricity of ordinary bulbs to generate the same amount of light.

CFLs are also cost effective. Advice from the Energy Saving Trust suggests that because it will last up to 10 times longer than a traditional bulb, just one energy saving bulb could save up to £7 a year and, depending on the length of time lights are in use every day, could save around £60 before it needs replacing. Fit all the lights in your house with energy saving bulbs and you could save around £600 over the lifetime of the bulbs.

In the UK £140 million a year is wasted by leaving lights switched on unnecessarily. This causes 900,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions.

Each house currently has on average around 23.5 light bulbs.

Notes to editors

1. The Government has proposed, as an illustrative schedule for the phase out of inefficient lamps, that retailers might want to follow:

* By January 2008, cease replacing stock of all inefficient (General Lighting Service, GLS) A-shaped incandescent lamps of energy rating higher than 100W (predominantly 150W lamps).

* By January 2009, cease selling all inefficient GLS A-shaped lamps of energy rating higher than 60W (predominantly 150W lamps, 100W lamps, plus some 75W lamps)

* By January 2010, cease selling all GLS A-shaped lamps of efficacy of energy rating higher than 40W (predominantly 60W lamps)

* By 31 December 2011, cease selling all remaining inefficient GLS A-shaped lamps and 60W "candle" and "golfball" lamps. (predominantly 40W and 25W A-shaped GLS bulbs, and 60W candles and golfballs).

At the moment, we expect candles and golfballs, tungsten halogen lamps and lamps supplied with non-lighting electrical appliances to remain on sale, because suitable energy-efficient alternatives do not currently exist.

2. The following retailers support this initiative: ASDA, B&Q, The Co-operative Group, Home Retail Group (Argos and Homebase), IKEA, John Lewis, Marks & Spencer, Morrisons, Sainsbury's, Somerfield, Tesco, Waitrose, Wickes, Woolworths, British Retail Consortium, Association of Convenience Stores and the British Hardware Federation. It is also being promoted through the major energy companies as part of their activities through the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT).

3. The next phase is that the Government will be issuing a public consultation paper on the detailed analysis, targets and standards that we would like to achieve for domestic lighting products in the UK, with a view to updating the illustrative phase out schedule above.

4. The EU is expected to bring forward its proposals for lighting measures under the Framework Directive for the Eco-design of Energy Using Products (the EUP Directive). Implementing measures will set specific and potentially compulsory standards for several of the least efficient street, office/industry and domestic lighting products destined for the European market in order that they meet energy efficiency, as well as other, requirements. Proposals for street and office lighting are due to be agreed by the end of 2008. Work on the domestic lighting begun at the beginning of June. The Commission is expected to table a proposal by the end of 2009.

5. Climate Change Minister Joan Ruddock today also wrote to retailers to progress the initiative announced in Budget 2006 to encourage more energy efficient set top boxes and other consumer electronics, including setting targets to reduce stand-by power.

6. Defra launched its ActOnCO2 carbon calculator www.direct.gov.uk/actonco2 as a public trial version on 20 June. There have been over 300,000 visits so far. The calculator helps people make the link between their own actions and climate change. Individuals or households can calculate the carbon footprint resulting from their home, appliances and personal travel using Government
approved data and methodologies. Users can also receive a personalised action plan with tips for reducing their carbon emissions. The calculator takes account of lighting in its home section.

7. Under the Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC), electricity and gas suppliers are required to meet targets for the promotion of improvements in household energy efficiency. They do this by encouraging householders to take up measures like cavity wall and loft insulation and energy efficient lights. The current phase of EEC is from 2005-08 and the Government has recently consulted on the third phase, to be called the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target, from April 2008 to March 2011. At least 10 million households received measures under the first phase of EEC (2002-05), which stimulated £600m of investment in energy efficiency and delivered net benefits to householders in excess of £3 billion. It will achieve carbon savings of around 1.1 MtC02 annually by 2010. EEC2 is at broadly double the level of EEC1 and is expected to save around 1.8 MtC02 annually by 2010. CERT is proposed to roughly double the activity under EEC2 and is expected to achieve an annual saving of about 4.0 MtCO2 by 2010.

8. The European Lamp Companies' Federation proposal for Domestic lighting, published June 2007 (http://www.elcfed.org – Latest News), sets out the EU industry's full position and proposals to the European Commission for EU legislation regarding the phase out of inefficient bulbs. These proposals are intended to allow time for a smooth switch to high-efficiency halogen and compact fluorescent lamps and the development of LED and high efficiency incandescent lamps. Contact
Jarita Christie, ELC Public Affairs Manager on +32 485 890 070 for further information.

Labels: Eu ban, phase out, UK light bulb, voluntary measures