Guest Blog: Solar Lighting and LEDs... a virtuous circle

Guest Blog : Thomas Bray (Part 2) : How Our Social Structure Needs Change.

The following is Guest Blog article produced by Thomas Bray of Direct Trade Supplies which examines how changing of some our fundamental attitudes and behaviours could enable us to live more sustainably and reward the development of new social values and goals.


Addressing the Advertising of Consumerism

Look at the way we are indoctrinated from birth to adulthood, we are plied with materialistic goals and aspirations which are considered to be the only real signs of success and integrity.  We are constantly exposed to psychological warfare and propaganda to help shape our brain to a certain way of thinking. We are controlled by a select number of invisible figures, intertwined in leading commercial businesses which share staggering profits and dish out suspicious backhanders for the benefit of only those at the top. But what if it was different, what if the ambitions they played out to us concentrated on contributing to a healthier and happier planet earth, with the preservation of nature and the environment at the forefront of their demands.

I’m not saying take away every element of materialism but pin it back to second or third place. Success shouldn’t be emphasised by how many cars you have, how big your home is or how many designer brand names you wear. Perhaps there should be a cap on how much consumer content can be used or at least produce enough content that concentrates on the environment to help balance the output. We need mankind to see through the object-orientated attractions, so they can find new and often free ways to gain their life highs.

Reconnecting With Nature

The odd fleeting campaign is not enough to tackle this pandemic. Look at the money spent on advertising brand names each year, look at gutter journalists raking and making up nonsense for their paper's political gain and look at the attention given towards commercialised sports – condense all of this energy, resource and funding into something that categorically means a lot more than all of the above; then, we might be onto something. Unfortunately at the moment it seems that numbers in a bank account is deemed more important than the future of our wonderful plants, animals and the environs that surround them. And until we bridge that gap and rediscover a love for the natural and spiritual gifts on earth – we will continue to be stuck in a smoky machine that stops for nothing, even if it means destroying the only platform it’s been given to explore.

Educating From An Early Age

I believe a complete overhaul of our existing social structure is required. From an early age parents and schools should teach our children about the importance of planet earth, the way in which we should interact with it and what steps we have to take to make sure it has a bright future. Just like the core subjects of English, Maths and Science, there should be a great emphasis on Earth studies. A reshuffle in the curriculum should hopefully plant the seed early on. As a side note, for poorer communities there must be a structure in place at school that can guide youngsters out of their situation and deter them from being attracted to criminal activities, which are sometimes the only visible career path they can take. This kind of allowance for a ‘how to get out the ghetto’ studies has been spoken about before, mainly by cultural commentators, but it has yet to fully gain traction or be implemented in inner city schooling.

Commercial Outlets Taking Responsibility

Businesses will also have to share a responsibility in curbing their pollution, from the amount of paper they get through to the fumes coming out of a factory. Although there are certain environmental laws and guidelines already in place these could be tightened and a threat to close down business, no matter how big or influential, would be issued if they fail to comply.

Obviously a small company will produce a lot less pollution compared to a larger one, so this means the requirements of how much pollution is allowed should be scaled up in proportion to a company’s size, operation and the nature of its business. Businesses currently have to pay environmental tax but there could be further schemes that see a particular percentage of profits filter into a piggy bank which can be accessed by leading charities, ecologists and campaign groups. These experts will then use this money to fund new inventions or secure protection for a vast range of natural subjects, from animals to the atmosphere.

There needs to be a truly independent body that monitors the amount of waste and pollution a business is producing. Should there be anything that inhibits or crosses over the guidelines the business should be instantly approached to find out why. If there are no appropriate reasons to why the pollution guidelines were breached then action should be taken, no matter who they are. We need to see an end to backhanders, favours and slipping through the net, the rules must not bent just because of who the perpetrator is. We are all accountable and no matter how powerful the organisation is - it should be treated just like the next.

Technology Will Play Its Part

There are some shining lights, such as the tweak to conserve more energy by introducing the influx of LEDs, which one day are said to completely replace and phase out CFL (Compact Fluorescent Bulbs). LEDs are by no means the end game for energy efficient lighting but at the moment they offer the only true alternative to other energy hungry lamps. What’s more LED modules are flexible and adaptable, and can be inserted into tiny pieces of technology which could never be achieved by previous cumbersome lamps.

There should be a real demand to make ordinary and well established items into greener and healthier things. People shouldn’t be put off by the magnitude of change and the opportunities to do so should be easily accessible. Engineers and innovators should be trying hard to make these products and projects more approachable for the masses, rather than offering solutions that take a lot of time, money and a radical overhaul of existing schedules/routines.

Helping Others To Improve Their Lives and Environment

Another issue that is currently being tackled by small design teams is the use of kerosene lamps in off-grid locations and humanitarian disasters. For years kerosene lamps have been the only light source for people living in war zones, locations that have suffered natural disasters and areas such as sub-saharan Africa that live off-grid with no electricity. Although kerosene lamps offer essential light, the Intermediate Technology Development Group and World Health Organisation state that the indoor air pollution from kerosene lamps and other similar indoor lighting fuels has resulted in more than 1.5 million deaths per year; contributing to lung disease, respiratory issues and eye-related deficiencies. With these shocking stats in mind, lighting designers and innovators have tried to find alternative ways to provide light and reduce deaths, which in-turn will also reduce pollution. One team called Solight Design have created a product called the SolarPuff, a durable, flexible and mobile lighting device that soaks up natural sunlight during the day, ready to turn into artificial light when it gets dark.

A simple yet effective product like the SolarPuff has the potential to be distributed across the world, to those that need it the most. It is pending approval with world governing bodies and has been piloted during the Haiti Earthquake in 2010. The positive outcome for these kinds of energy efficient lighting systems are endless - they can light up a classroom full of youngsters eager to learn, light up a home for navigational necessities and make intruders think twice about entering a property. One of the most damning statistics attached to off-grid locations without light, particularly in Sub Saharan Africa, is that a power outage increases the probability of rape by 20%. This is another important reason to address these problems and bring a solution that not only changes lives but also improves the world’s climate.

The Mission Is Achievable

Although these blueprints for change are positive - is it enough? In short, no it isn’t. We need to be assessing each and every pollutant and coming up with new ways to reduce its risk. We need to overhaul the entire structure and pull together in the same direction, whether it’s a regular citizen recycling every night or it’s a billionaire business in the oil trade - we need this to be a consensus all over and a mission that is followed by humanity as a whole.

There are 7 billion people in this world and it’s about time we took responsibility of where we live and what surrounds us. We have so many things on our side to make change possible  - intelligence, technology, kindness and willingness, all of these points and more can be drawn upon to make the dreams of a better planet earth a reality. We need to put religion and conflict to one side, and view humanity as a one living organism. At the end of the day we are all just body bags of DNA existing on a spinning rock in the air, but it just so happens that this spinning rock is full of amazing and important natural furnishings that need protecting to ensure its flourishing future.

Written by Thomas Bray of Direct Trade Supplies, Electrical Wholesaler.

Guest Blog : Changing Consumer Culture... One LED At A Time

Big brands 'cheating' with false energy efficiency claims

BREAKING NEWS... from The Guardian... VW mark II?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/17/leading-lightbulb-brands-making-false-claims-on-energy-efficiency

Lightbulb manufacturers are misleading consumers about the brightness and energy use of their products by exploiting a loophole in European tests, lab results seen by the Guardian show.

Ikea, Philips, GE and Osram are among the companies exaggerating energy performance up to 25% higher than that claimed on packaging, according to the Swedish Consumer Association tests. Ikea told the Guardian as a result it would refund customers who were dissatisfied with bulbs they had bought from its stores.

The discrepancy is caused by manufacturers taking advantage of leeways – known as “tolerances” in official testing procedures for bulbs.

The Swedish tests, conducted between, 2012-14, found that a 42W Airam halogen lamp consumed 25% more energy than claimed on the label to achieve its declared 630 lumens of brightness.

A GE 70W halogen bulb guzzled 20% more energy to reach its stated 1,200 lumens. A 28W Philips halogen bulb was found to be 24% less bright than claimed while Ikea’s 53W and 70W bulbs both underperformed by 16%.


A senior lighting industry executive told the Guardian that tolerance manipulation was rampant, forcing smaller firms to put substandard products onto the market or risk going out of business.
“All the major brands are doing it,” the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“No one is clean on this issue and everyone has to follow suit to compete. In the past, we declared our measured values on the packaging but when we measured our competitors equivalent products we saw that they were declaring higher values on their labels.

“So we had to play the same game. We’re in a competitive market and if we didn’t, we would be idiots.”

There is nothing illegal about the mislabelling, which cuts across brands and ranges and affects the lightbulbs’ advertised brightness per unit of energy – rather than their A-G energy label ratings.

But the same whistleblower, who has two decades of experience in the industry, said that many companies manufactured products with lower-grade components knowing that they would fall short of the required wattage and lumens specifications, as his firm was now reluctantly doing.

“The industry just follows the letter of the regulations, and they’re not in line with today’s technology,” he explained. “The net result is that consumers are being cheated by the system and I’m fed up with it.”

The European tests for bulbs allow for a 10% tolerance threshold, meaning a bulb advertised as rated at 600 lumens, a measure of brightness, could in reality be 540 lumens.

A 2-3% tolerance threshold would be fairer and easily doable at little extra cost to consumers, the Guardian’s source said.

The European commission is aware of the loophole and has been working on proposals to close it since November 2012. Staff working documents show that officials knew that firms were exploiting loopholes in the system as far back as 2013. But plans for a legislative proposal are still gathering dust.

“The commission found out that lighting manufacturers were adding the tolerance to the performance they measured for their own lamps, and using this to claim a higher label class than the performance they measured [in their energy] labelling or claim a pass for a product they measured as failing in ecodesign [regulations],” a commission spokesperson said. “This is not what is meant to be done, but the text of the regulations did not specifically exclude it.”

While the commission has moved to close the loophole in energy labelling, lamp ecodesign requirements will not be reformed until next year, the official added.

This would leave the tolerance loophole in place for other home appliances such as TVs, water heaters, dishwashers, washing machines, fridges and air conditioners.

The cost to consumers across the home appliance industry range could be as high as €2bn a year, when other home appliance product ranges were factored in, the campaign group Coolproducts said.
Viktor Sundberg, a vice-president at Electrolux said that tolerance loopholes should be closed across all product ranges. “I would like the EU to go ahead with a clarification to make the law clearer to everyone at the beginning of next year,” he said.

Efficiency campaigners say that they have been told by officials that a robust proposal to address the problem is “doomed” because of fears in Brussels of attracting headlines comparing it to the VW diesel emissions scandal.

“VW went bang and EU regulators woke up,” said Stephane Arditi, a product expert for the European Environmental Bureau. “The same thing could happen with home appliances, but the commission leadership would prefer to go back to sleep. They should accelerate rather than bury these reforms. Until they do, the playing field will slope in favour of those prepared to deceive their own customers.”

Raw data from the 2012 and 2013 tests has been published on a blog.

When contacted by the Guardian, Ikea offered full refunds or product exchanges to any customers dissatisfied with lightbulbs they had bought from their stores.

“The report refers to halogen bulbs that are no longer sold at Ikea,” a spokesperson for the Swedish firm said. “Since September 2015, we switched our entire lighting range to LED for our customers to live a more sustainable life at home.”

Jo Picardo, a spokesperson for Philips, said that the firm complied with all relevant standards and was committed to accurate labelling.

“Lamp performance can differ per bulb,” she said. “This is the nature of the product and is especially true of halogen bulbs due to the tungsten coil. On average our bulbs meet the specs well within the allowed 10% tolerance range.”

Osram described the issue as “not company-specific but an industry topic” and deferred to the Lighting Europe trade association.

Diederik de Stoppelaar, Lighting Europe’s secretary-general, said that the industry was aware of the problem and that his association’s tests had found discrepancies of up to 35% in stated lightbulb performances, mostly involving bulbs manufactured outside the EU.

“The allegations are not new to us as in our market surveillance programme we had the same findings,” he said. “We found mistakes in lumen output mainly.” His preferred solution though was for a simplified label, rather than an end to the current tolerance threshold.

“We need a reasonable tolerance and in principle, tolerances of 10% are accepted in international standards,” he said. “I believe that all the major suppliers are within the limit. Once or twice you might get an occasional difference but that can also be a manufacturing issue, or an exceptional case.”
De Stoppelaar declined to share information about the performance of EU-based companies in Lighting Europe’s surveys.

• This article was amended on 17 December 2015. An earlier version showed a photograph of a fluorescent, rather than halogen, bulb.

Guest blog : Trust and the need for independent lab tests

by Rory Wilding, Which LED Light