Today is the start of the phased ban on incandescent light bulbs in Europe.
This is a really poorly thought out policy, and a very thinly veiled attempt to push consumers from cheaper unpatented technologies like the common light bulb that dates back to Thomas Edison, and force them to buy newer patented alternatives which have their own drawbacks.
The argument that this is for environmental reasons does not hold water, nor do the cost analysis.
There is the argument that older bulbs use only a few percent of energy consumed to actually produce light, and the rest is simply converted to heat. Well I heat my house in the winter at the same time of the year I use the most lighting, and if my light bulbs contribute to that, I will simply use less central heating.
In addition, while newer bulbs may be more efficient, the amount of energy used for home lighting is a very, very tiny percentage of world energy use and therefore the amount of energy saved is also tiny. We are also replacing a product that used to be made in Europe (ordinary light bulbs) with one that is now made in China and shipped half way across the world (CFLs). The extra energy used to transport these bulbs is surely not part of the politicians energy calculation.
CFLs contain mercury, a dangerous poison. Long ago mercury thermometers were made illegal almost everywhere in the world over safety concerns. Most of us, including those of us who are environmentally aware, don’t want to have any unnecessary mercury in our homes! It does not matter what the amount is, or if our local city governments promise to recycle it. The most environmentally friendly product is not one that’s been recycled, it’s the one that was never purchased in the first place! We simply do not want to buy, consume or be exposed to any mercury in our homes. There is no internationally or scientifically recognized ‘safe limit’ to exposure to mercury in living spaces that I’m aware of. There is certainly no desirable limit of exposure.
Besides, the technology exists now to make CFLs with considerably less mercury than is currently being done. While politicians and product manufacturers would love to see us all go out and buy the high mercury version now, only to rush out and replace them by buying the lower mercury version later, that’s not what we as consumers want to do. If we are going to buy CFLs at all, for most of us it makes sense to wait until the low mercury versions are available to buy them!
When the time comes that manufacturers create a product consumers want to buy that replaces the traditional light bulb, it will be time to phase them out. Until then, it’s time politicians see that people don’t want inferior, poisonous and pointless technology forced down their throat for the sake of corporate profits.
In the meantime, politicians might want to turn their attention to matters of real consequence to the environment, like agricultural reform, increased efficiency in vehicle transport, the phasing out of nuclear and carbon based power generation and the reinvigoration of local economies.
This whole idea of getting rid of light bulbs must have been dreamt up by the same politicians who thought of the EU consitutional reforms we are all so eagerly waiting for.
Patrick – I can’t really agree with you on this issue.
Lighting accounts for 25-35% of energy use in Western economies and as far as I am aware most, if not all, environmental organisations, regard them as being superior to the old bulbs, which are a dated technology.
Tungsten bulbs may generate heat but they don’t do that or light at all efficiently and on summer nights that heat generated is a big drawback.
I was concerned by the mercury issue as well, however even in current CFLs the amount of mercury is tiny – it would be best thought that the introduction of CFLs coincides with information of where consumers can leave used bulbs so that they can be safely disposed of (technologies do exist).
The issue of Chinese imports is a fair point although I would have thought that many of the old tungsten bulbs are sourced from there anyway.
James
Hi James, fair enough, not everyone agrees with everyone all the time. You and I seem to agree on most other things though.
While I couldn’t stand by it, I think your figure of 25-35% is probably true. However this doesn’t tell the whole story.
Typically, lighting accounts for 10-15% of home electricity consumption, and this might be cut in half with CFLs or halogen lighting. So this EU law as it stands will save less than 8% of household electricity consumption, and for most of us who make an effort not to waste electricity anyway that’s not really a lot. The extra energy of manufacturing the bulbs and transporting them from China has to be taken into account too, and I suspect there’s really no significant energy savings in the end.
In addition, many of us have access to carbon neutral electricity, sometimes even paying extra for it, so in theory there should be no environmental impact anyway.
So if you say “25-35% of energy use in Western economies” and I say “10-15% of home electricity” where does this leave us with the difference?
Notice the wording here too, you say “energy” and I say “home electricity”. This is a very important and significant difference. I am talking about a much, much smaller amount of energy.
The difference comes from agriculture and public lighting. The Netherlands for example has such a huge problem with light pollution, it’s known to change the migration patters of birds and disturb the sleeping cycles of other wild animals. The countryside is covered with greenhouses growing peppers and tomatoes for export, and every corner of every city is illuminated at night. Hardly any of this lighting by the way come from incandescent bulbs, but mostly in comes from HID-type lighting systems, which are among the most efficient in the world. These are about four times as efficient as florescent bulbs.
I also think you missed my point about the mercury. The easiest mercury to dispose of or recycle is the mercury we don’t buy. If an accident happens and a bulb breaks in your house, or a bulb gets thrown into the trash instead of recycled, that’s just exposure to a poisonous chemical or pollution that serves no point. If you’re going to recycle the mercury, you also need to take the energy costs of this into the equation.
James, the other thing you’re missing here is Einstein’s law on the conservation of energy.
Yes, light bulbs may not be the most efficient way to heat your home, but all the energy that goes into them has to come back out somewhere else. In the case of a light bulb, the energy comes out as both heat and light and little else.
It’s different for you of course if the weather is warm, but for me if I turn on a light bulb while I’m heating my house I will benefit from the light and everything else will go into my house. No energy will be ‘wasted’, it all has to go somewhere.
I heat my house with natural gas, and my electricity comes from wind power and a natural gas fired power plant. The wind power is of course carbon neutral, and the gas powered plant converts gas into electricity with about an 80% rate of efficiency. This means I’m losing a very small amount of energy, in the very small amount of electricity that my light bulbs turn into heat.
Humph! You are bringing up very good points! A 4 pack of incandescent costs about $1 a Kroger. Florescents are at least $1 each. Granted there are high qualty CFLs that do last for many years, but the ones sold is stores are not them. I’ve had a few burn out in months. I don’t even want to know how much mercury is is one CFL. Minuscule amounts of mercury can contaminate surface and ground water over vast areas. The protocol for a broken CFL is frightening. You’re supposed to put the debris in a sealed glass jar, ventilate, and leave the are for at least 15 mins. (All at the same time!!) when I break an incandescent, I get the dust pan. Sorry to rant, but politicians are so ineffective sometimes!
Lzyjo, you are so right! There are many very poor quality CFLs around. Many that only last a few months, have annoying flickers, have blue light or many other minor or major problems.
Again the solution here seems to be that as consumers we are supposed to just keep buying new ones until we get it right!
Well said, Patrick. This is a daft and hypocritical measure – entirely consistent with everything else involving the EU, in fact.
As you say rightly, this is a piffling drop in an enormous ocean. But of course, it’s been enacted because it’s easy… allowing us all to pat each other on the backs and say how environmentally friendly we are, while we ignore the elephant in the room (ie how the electricity is generated in the first place). I loathe the EU and all its works, but the truth of this one is that it panders to everybody’s unwillingness to take any action that might truly impact on their lifestyle.
This kind of emblematic, no-do politics makes me very angry if I let it. But hey, that’s humanity. Perhaps we’re better off doomed.