Lights go out on 60W light bulbs in the UK

On September 1 2011, 60 watt domestic incandescent light bulbs will begin to be phased out in UK shops.

Labels: 60W, BBC, phase out, Philips, Radio 4, You and Yours

Eco-St : Light Bulb Library : Review

Ban The Bulb has borrowed a low energy "light bulb library" from Matt Lane of Eco-St and been trying out some of the 40 different designs of high-quality energy saving light bulb that have been gathered together for this loanable library.



Visually impaired

The most suitable energy saving light bulb, for those that are visually impaired, has proven to be the 25W Pro-Lite Daylite.

This lamp quickly produces a very bright light which covers a full "daylight" spectrum and is equivalent to a 125W incandescent light bulb.

It costs about £9 to buy, lasts for 8000 hours (approx. 8 years) and uses 6 times less electricity to produce the same amount of light as the traditional alternative.

It has been calculated that this energy saving lamp uses £12 less electricity each year or £96 over its lifetime.





100W equivalent : 20W Soft tone

Many people find the light produced by the stick and spiral designs of energy saving light bulb too harsh.

As a result, several of the manufacturers have started to encapsulate the familiar energy saving spirals or sticks inside glass globes which are tinted to produce a warmer or softer tone of light.

Ban The Bulb would recommend that you used these encapsulated designs in living space and the stick designs for areas such as stairs and hallways where the tone of light matters less.

The Philips 20W Softone energy saving light bulb produces a good brightness within 1-2 seconds and full brightness within about a minute.

It costs £4.99 to buy one of these lamps and saves roughly £10 per year on electricity bills. With an 8000 hour (approx 8 year) lifetime this amounts to an £80 saving on bills.

75W equivalent : 16W Softone

The Philips 16W Softone is an encapsulated design of energy saving light bulb, which produces a mellow light and reaches a good brightness within 3 seconds and full brightness within 30 seconds - 1 minute.

It costs £4.99 and saves roughly £9 per year (£72 over life time) on electricity bills when compared to a 75W incandescent equivalent.


General Advice

Use the higher wattages of energy saving bulb

In general, BTB recommends that you avoid the lower wattages of energy saving light bulb as there do seem to be issues with the conversion of watts (the unit of electricity) and lumens (the unit of light) and it seems best to err on the side of caution; by buying a slightly higher wattage of energy saver that you might expect.

You can also check the lumen levels on the box and this is a good idea if you have time.

You get what you pay for

Millions of energy saving light bulbs have been given away free but these tend to be relatively poorly made and to be produced by little known brands or obscure Chinese companies.

BTB therefore recommends that you buy energy savers that have been produced by well-known brands. Even if the cost a bit more to purchase, they will almost certainly do a better job and help you to avoid disappointment.

As with other household goods, you tend to get what you pay for, and both the quality of light and lifetimes seem to be more satisfactory from the bigger brands.

All energy saving light bulbs are not equal

Although I haven't had time to undertake a thorough review of all of the light bulbs in the library, you might like to know that:

Osram / GE seem to make some of the best compact "stick" designs,

Pro-Lite seen to make the brightest energy savers with the widest light spectrum,

Philips seem to make the best soft tone and "encapsulated" globe designs and,

Pro-Lite and Megaman seem to make the best candle shaped compacts.

BTB hasn't found any dimmable CFLs that it is happy to endorse and would recommend that you waited for LEDs, such as those made by Sharp / EcoLED to get cheaper and more widely available.

Visit a specialist lighting shop + try before you buy

Please have a look at the numerous light bulb suppliers in the links on the left if you want to compare prices and look at a wider range of light bulbs.

It is also a good idea to visit specialist lighting shops such as Ryness and Eco-St, so that you can ask them to demonstrate different light bulbs before you buy.

Thanks to Matt Lane for allowing me borrow his excellent light bulb library.

Labels: light bulb library, Philips, pro-lite, visually impaired

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

China and the US moving towards light bulb bans?

According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, both China and the US are moving towards bans of domestic incandescent light bulbs...

This is great news, but as you will see below their are reasons to be concerned that the lighting industry will be left to determine what the new minimum energy performance standards of domestic light bulbs should be and how long should be allowed for everyone to stop using incandescent light bulbs.

Ban The Bulb feels the minimum energy performance standards should:

(1) Be the same or better than today's compact fluorescent lamps and

(2) That no more than 5 years should be allowed before 100W and 60W incandescents are phased out.

The House and Senate are working on legislation that over the next seven years would phase out the conventional light bulb, a move aimed at saving energy and reducing man-made emissions believed linked to climate change.

General Electric Co., Philips Electronics NV of the Netherlands and other manufacturers have been meeting with conservation and environmental groups and say they are close to agreement on the general terms of a phaseout. Bipartisan coalitions in Congress are likely to add these terms to a broad energy bill expected to be voted on next month.

While manufacturers voiced some concerns about producing enough bulbs to meet the new deadlines, they emphasized that they want prompt federal legislation that would prevent states from setting their own standards, creating a patchwork of differing requirements. Nevada has already set its own standard, and California is considering one.


Paul Waide, a policy analyst with the International Energy Agency, based in Paris, told the Senate Energy Committee yesterday that the European Union, Canada and Australia are planning similar phaseouts of conventional incandescent bulbs, and China is beginning to consider one.

"It is not inconceivable that over the next 10 to 15 years that maybe all incandescent lights will be removed from the global market," he said. If that happened, he added, the resulting reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions might equal almost three-fourths of the reductions that industrial nations have promised under the Kyoto Protocol to curb global warming.

The U.S., which has four billion electric lights using such bulbs, represents about a third of the world market. Installing more-efficient incandescent or compact fluorescent bulbs would save consumers about $6 billion a year in energy costs, said Jeffrey Harris, a vice president of the Alliance to Save Energy, a nonprofit group based in Washington.

Common incandescent bulbs, which have been around for more than 100 years, are able to convert only 5% of the electricity they use into visible light. The rest is lost as heat.

Under the timetable proposed in both House and Senate versions, incandescent bulbs would begin to disappear from U.S. markets beginning in 2012, with 100-watt bulbs going first, then 75-watt bulbs a year later and then the more popular 60- and 40-watt bulbs by 2014.

They would be replaced by compact fluorescent bulbs and more-efficient incandescent lamps, which can cut energy use from 30% to 75%. By 2020, both bills call for lighting standards that can only be met by the compact fluorescents or other technologies that can match their efficiency.

Manufacturers hope to use a few different technologies to meet the proposed standards, but they say it will be a challenge getting new lamps out by 2012, the proposed starting date. The manufacturers also had initially been looking for a longer phaseout period of five years instead of three.

Randy Moorehead, vice president of government relations for Philips Electronics, North America, said the industry mostly supports the phase-in period but has problems with the 2020 proposed standards. Mr. Moorehead said Congress should wait to set a 2020 standard to see where the technology is headed. He said manufacturers will have to scrap new multimillion-dollar investments in equipment and employees to meet 2012 standards.

GE had announced a new energy-efficient incandescent lamp that will be 30% more efficient by 2012. GE plans to roll out the first version in 2010. GE indicated the bulb would likely be comparable to a 60-watt or 40-watt bulb. Osram Sylvania, a unit of Siemens AG, is also introducing an energy-efficient incandescent bulb.

Philips is unveiling a halogen light this fall that will be markedly more efficient and three times longer-lasting than incandescent bulbs -- but will also be more expensive initially than compact and incandescent bulbs.

GE and the two other big light bulb makers, Philips and Osram Sylvania, also are looking at light emitting diodes, or LEDS, as new sources of residential lighting. "We'll certainly fill in any gaps with other technologies," says Earl Jones, senior counsel for GE's consumer-and-industrial unit.

Nearly all compact fluorescent bulbs are made in China. Although they cost more than conventional bulbs, the energy savings over their longer lifetimes are substantial. Noting that only 10% of bulbs sold in the U.S. are compact fluorescents, Kyle Pitsor, vice president of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, said the industry will mount a public-education campaign to push the more efficient bulbs.

BTB is deeply concerned that some of the world's biggest light bulb manufacturers, such as Philips and GE, are lobbying to be allowed to sell the next generation of incandescent light bulbs, which use 30% less electricity that today's models, and are not focusing their efforts on scaling up the production of compacts fluorescent lamps which already offer 75% energy savings.

The motives for this move remain unclear. However, it seems crazy to halve the effectiveness of the world's proposed light bulb bans, for no apparent reason, and BTB hopes that all of the big manufacturers will consider refocusing their efforts on bringing more compact fluorescent lamps to market and developing new technologies, such as LEDs and ceramic lighting technologies, which will significantly improve on what is already possible with CFLs.

Ban The Bulb supports measures which are technology neutral, and is not opposed to incandescents on principle, but is not prepared to endorse minimum standards which encourage the unnecessary waste of money, energy and carbon and delay changes which are already feasible.

Labels: 30%, 75%, China, GE, minimum standards, Philips, US

The Guardian : Light bulb review

The Guardian has published a light bulb review I wrote for them which assessed the performance of a wide range of energy-saving light bulbs and rated them (out of 10) according to a key set of criteria including warm-up time, light quality, looks (size), lifetime and cost.

In general, I was pleasantly surprised by the recent improvements in the performance of energy saving light bulbs, otherwise known as compact fluorescent lamps or CFLs.

I also realised that the traditional-style (globe-shaped) designs of CFL produced a much more even and pleasing light, for a room, than the more iconic stick-shaped bulbs.

Some of the lamps were significantly better than the energy saving bulbs I had used before and I ended up recommending the 60 Watt equivalents from Philips (12 Watt, Softone, 8 year), Tesco (11 Watt, Energy Saver, Bayonet cap) and GE (11 Watt, Energy Saving Elegance) as the best all round performers (please see the review below).

The Philips design shown in this picture costs £3.99 per bulb and scored 10 out of 10 in all of the categories tested. It also claimed to last for 8000 hours.

The Tesco-branded bulb scored 8 or 9 out of 10 in all of the categories tested, claimed to last 6000 hours and cost only 81p.

The 100 Watt equivalents from Philips (20 Watt, Softone, 8 years) and GE (20 Watt, Energy Saving Elegance, 6 years) were also very good - although the Philips design was much more compact than the very bulky design from GE.

My thanks to Leo Hickman, Lucy Clouting and Bibi van der Zee for their assistance with the collection of the different light bulbs and the production of this article.

Bright lights

Still not convinced by the performance of eco light blubs? Matt Prescott founder of the Ban the Bulb campaign, puts the latest models to the test

The Guardian Thursday August 2 2007

Blame the 1970s. One of the problems holding back the uptake of energy-saving light bulbs has been that many people have still not forgotten the poor-quality versions they used then. But today, with lighting now using approximately 10% of the UK's electricity supplies, energy prices rocketing upwards, and a generally increased concern about the effects of climate change, many people say they are now prepared to give energy-efficient bulbs a second chance - provided that their performance has improved. So I put some compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) to the test.

Although not perfect, the good news is that energy-saving bulbs have improved considerably, even over the past couple of years. They might not work properly with dimmers yet, but they are generally smaller, brighter and softer on the eye than they used to be. Because they work by making a phosphorous coating glow rather than by heating a filament, energy-saving light bulbs use 60% less electricity to make the same amount of light as an equivalent incandescent. This saves about £9 worth of electricity per bulb per year; or put another way, they last 6-15 times longer than the 1,000 hours of a traditional bulb and offer the UK a quick and simple way of cutting CO² emissions by 2-3m tonnes each year.

Despite these advantages, energy-saving bulbs are a lot more variable in their performance than we have come to expect from incandescents, and each make and retailer offers quite a different product. For example, it is possible to buy traditional globe-, spiral- and stick-shaped bulbs of varying size, cheap and cheerful CFLs from China, or relatively sophisticated CFLs from the major western brands, which incorporate many of the latest patents. For this review, I have stuck to a basic range of 100W- and 60W-equivalent CFLs.

My personal assessments are based on how well each light bulb worked in the same room, straight out of the box, and how happy I would have been to continue using each bulb in my own home. I have not been able to verify the life-expectancy claims for each one, as this is said to range from 6,000 to 15,000 hours (you can only watch a light bulb for so long), but I have mentioned the manufacturers' claims.

In most cases, the information available on the packaging was close to useless and took plenty of very determined reading to yield anything useful. None of the labels explained, in plain English, the amount of mercury in the bulb, how to dispose of it safely once used, its financial, carbon and energy savings, or the spectrum of light produced. Given that these are the first things people always ask me when seeking advice about what bulb to use, it's a shame this isn't standardised on all packaging.

The presence of mercury is something I am frequently asked about. A small amount is still needed in order to make all compact fluorescent lamps work, although the amount has steadily declined and is now about 50% less than used to be the norm even a couple of years ago, at approximately 4 milligrammes per bulb. The fact that it is still used is regrettable yet unavoidable at present, but the average quantity is three times less than the mercury released into the atmosphere by burning the extra coal need to power equivalent incandescent bulbs. As the mercury is contained within a sealed glass container it should be a relatively straightforward matter to recycle it safely. The EU's restriction of hazardous substances directive came into effect on July 1 2006 and provides a framework for how such recycling could be done, but is not yet law. To date, Ikea is the only company I know of that recycles all the CFLs returned to it and I hope it will not be long before all retailers follow suit in this important area.

And the results are ...

Following my test, I found that I preferred the performance of the traditional-style CFLs. They all produced a high level and quality of light within 1-3 seconds and produced an even light quality in all directions. The light intensities were good in all cases, and they all illuminated my test room more effectively than the stick bulbs, which cast light spots and shaded areas on the walls. The traditional-style designs from Philips offered the best performance. They warmed up to a bright light almost instantaneously and provided a very good even light around the entire room. The 100W-equivalent Philips bulb was more than capable of lighting a large room on its own. The traditonal-style bulb from Tesco also performed well against all of the test criteria and was very cheap at only 81p even though the life expectancy was relatively short at 6,000 hours.

· Dr Matt Prescott is director of the Ban the Bulb campaign (banthebulb.org).

Labels: GE, light bulb review, Philips, Tesco, The Guardian

EU to lift 66% trade tariffs on Chinese light bulbs

According to the Associated Press the EU has said that it plans to lift trade charges on Chinese light bulbs despite German complaints.

At present energy saving light bulbs made in China have a 66% trade tariff added to their cost when they are imported into the EU.

This "tax" has protected EU-based light bulb manufacturers from Chinese imports for several years, but this protection mechanism has looked vulnerable ever since the EU's leaders announced that they wanted to make the carbon savings associated with using more energy efficient lighting.

The following AP article suggests that Philips (in Holland) has prepared for this eventuality by setting up manufacturing capacity in China whilst others manufacturers, such as Osram (in Germany), have not built any manufacturing capacity in China and will therefore suffer a loss of market share when this tariff is removed.

Issues which will now come to the fore include the quality of the energy saving light bulbs made in China (especially in relation to mercury content, life-time and light quality) and the carbon emissions associated with transporting light bulbs from China to the EU. The minimum standards set by the EU when they phase out traditional domestic incandescents in 2011 will therefore have added significance.

The Associated Press

BRUSSELS, Belgium: Charges that raise the price of Chinese-made energy-efficient light bulbs should be scrapped, European Union regulators said Thursday.

The European Commission said it planned to lift antidumping duties on power-saving bulbs made in China that raise prices for European customers by two-thirds. The commission came out against Germany's Osram AG, which has pushed to keep the duties in place, claiming below-cost imports are unfair to European manufacturers.

EU spokesman Peter Power said Osram was trying to damage Dutch rival Royal Philips Electronics NV, which makes bulbs in China. The EU will suggest lifting the duties in the coming months, he said.

"Osram is seeking to continue antidumping measures because they hit Philips proportionately harder," Power told reporters. "It is a question of commercial competition between two European companies."

It is also a question of saving power and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Lighting is a major drain on the power grid, and the EU aims to cut both energy use and carbon dioxide releases by a fifth by 2020.

Shifting to eco-friendly bulbs will soon be mandatory, as the EU plans to set new efficiency standards for all lights used in homes and workplaces and on streets. Most lamp manufacturers have agreed to phase out standard incandescent light bulb within eight years.

But the higher cost of greener bulbs has deterred customers. Since 2001, the EU has slapped a 66 percent duty on imports of fluorescent bulbs from China because European producers claimed they were unfairly hurt by low-cost bulbs being dumped on the European market.

Those fees were due to expire July 19, after five years. But they are still in place while the EU's executive arm holds talks with national trade experts — including Germany, which wants to keep the duties in place.

Power said a meeting Thursday would discuss the problem, but would make no final decision. A definitive proposal, including the suspension of the duties, was expected within months.

He said Osram was not the voice of besieged European manufacturers, and noted that Philips, General Electric Co. and Havells Sylvania together make more bulbs in Europe than Osram does. To complicate matters further, like Philips, Osram also makes bulbs in China that are sold at dumped prices.

A group of EU importers, the Foreign Trade Association, called on national governments this week to lift the duties.

The EU has investigated a host of complaints from European companies in recent years claiming their shoes, furniture and DVDs have unfairly lost ground to a wide range of Chinese-made products sold below cost in Europe, breaking world trade rules.

Thanks to Antony Froggatt for passing on this article.

Labels: China, EU, Osram, Philips, tariff

Philips: phasing out incandescents within 10 yrs?

Lighting manufacturer Philips has called for incandescent light bulbs to be phased out within 10 years under the EU eco-design directive.

Philips has suggested that inefficient incandescent light bulbs could be phased out in Europe within 10 years provided that EU governments and other stakeholders worked together.

More specifically, Philips' lighting boss Theo van Deursen recommended that discussions should be held under the EuP or eco-design of energy-using products directive.

This 2005 directive is already legally binding and provides a framework for a series of product-specific eco-standards to be drawn up.

Philips believes that a phase-out must be achieved "collectively" rather than being imposed on manufacturers, whilst environmental organisations have expressed concern about allowing voluntary agreements to determine the standards set under the EUP directive.

Although announced unilaterally, the announcement by Philips appears to be part of a long-running campaign by the lighting sector to promote greater energy efficiency and there are signs that a phased removal of incandescents from the market (as an example of inefficient and needlessly wasteful technology) could find some support among the EU's member states... with Tony Blair announcing in July 06 that the UK government would be seeking to phase-out the most inefficient light bulbs in partnership with other EU governments.

Labels: 10 years, incandescents, phase out, Philips