Bulb Ban = Bulb Hoarders
It may seem irrational to us all that in times when energy costs are going up, some individuals would be wanting to keep their incandescents, but in the run up to the voluntary January 2009 bulb ban (which will see 150W and 100W bulbs removed from all major retailers with all incandescents removed by 2011).
There are good reasons why a ban on incandescents are a good thing, both environmentally and politically. Lighting accounts for anywhere from 8 - 19% of our total energy use, and it is expected that the ban will reduce our energy consumption annually by 5.5%, or 9200GWh, in the process reducing CO2 emissions by 5m tonnes, the equivalent of the expected CO2 saving of the Severn barrage. This also begs the question, why build a £10 billion super structure when in reality all you have to do is ban a bulb, costing a few million pounds, with the same positive outcome. Obviously the barrage can still come along later to reduce emissions even further, provide clean energy and help the government meet renewable energy targets.
Reducing the amount of electricity used in real terms through measures like this also reduce the demand on energy, and the materials used to provide that energy, which also reduces the end cost to the consumer across all major fuel sources. By reducing the total energy used nationwide, you also have a higher output in percentage terms from your renewable energy sources, without having to install further capacity.
But why did the government choose not to go for an all out ban, like Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and the US. This would have made it illegal to obtain the bulbs even from specialist retailers, however how could this be punished under law, it may make an interesting court case followed by the media, and the crime, threatening national energy security .. maybe. But by default with so many countries implementing a ban, manufactures stop production, importation of bulbs in quantity from Asia regions grind to a halt, introducing new smaller supply changes, thus increasing the cost of bulbs, it is likely however to increase the price of the standard bulb dramatically. Already both the 150W and 100W bulbs are a hard to find item at your local supermarket as supplies dry up.
Hence why some people have turned to stockpiling incandescent bulbs, concerns seem to be more aesthetic than safety-conscious.
On 16 & 17 April 2008, the Energy Saving Trust carried out a lightbulb ‘Pepsi’ challenge at Bluewater Shopping Centre to see if the public could tell the difference between traditional and Energy Saving Recommended lightbulbs.
For the experiment two identical booths were specially built each with a lounge – one lit with a traditional light bulb and one lit with an energy saving one.
Members of the public were then asked to enter each of the booths for ten seconds and say whether they could tell which one contained the energy saving lightbulb, and which one they preferred.
Out of 761 shoppers, 53 per cent either got it wrong or could not spot the difference, despite 70 per cent of shoppers being confident that they would be able to spot the energy efficient lightbulb before they did the test. The shoppers were not told whether they had guessed right, but 64 per cent of people claimed to prefer the light produced by the energy efficient light bulb.
Maybe the solution is bulb amnesties in the streets of Britain where you can get rid of your old 100W bulbs in exchange for a free energy saving bulb, that way the county would be rid of those high wattage bulbs, from of course the people willing to give them up.
Related Articles
Voluntary Bulb Ban Initiated
The CFL Mercury Myths
Mercury in CFLs in Context
LED Night Lights
There are good reasons why a ban on incandescents are a good thing, both environmentally and politically. Lighting accounts for anywhere from 8 - 19% of our total energy use, and it is expected that the ban will reduce our energy consumption annually by 5.5%, or 9200GWh, in the process reducing CO2 emissions by 5m tonnes, the equivalent of the expected CO2 saving of the Severn barrage. This also begs the question, why build a £10 billion super structure when in reality all you have to do is ban a bulb, costing a few million pounds, with the same positive outcome. Obviously the barrage can still come along later to reduce emissions even further, provide clean energy and help the government meet renewable energy targets.
Reducing the amount of electricity used in real terms through measures like this also reduce the demand on energy, and the materials used to provide that energy, which also reduces the end cost to the consumer across all major fuel sources. By reducing the total energy used nationwide, you also have a higher output in percentage terms from your renewable energy sources, without having to install further capacity.
But why did the government choose not to go for an all out ban, like Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and the US. This would have made it illegal to obtain the bulbs even from specialist retailers, however how could this be punished under law, it may make an interesting court case followed by the media, and the crime, threatening national energy security .. maybe. But by default with so many countries implementing a ban, manufactures stop production, importation of bulbs in quantity from Asia regions grind to a halt, introducing new smaller supply changes, thus increasing the cost of bulbs, it is likely however to increase the price of the standard bulb dramatically. Already both the 150W and 100W bulbs are a hard to find item at your local supermarket as supplies dry up.
Hence why some people have turned to stockpiling incandescent bulbs, concerns seem to be more aesthetic than safety-conscious.
"It's a bad idea. They're not only bad for the climate but mean a bigger electricity bill. Incandescent light bulbs were invented in the 1880s and use 80% more electricity than energy saving ones. The time has come to move into the 21st Century."
Ben Stewart, Greenpeace
On 16 & 17 April 2008, the Energy Saving Trust carried out a lightbulb ‘Pepsi’ challenge at Bluewater Shopping Centre to see if the public could tell the difference between traditional and Energy Saving Recommended lightbulbs.
For the experiment two identical booths were specially built each with a lounge – one lit with a traditional light bulb and one lit with an energy saving one.
Members of the public were then asked to enter each of the booths for ten seconds and say whether they could tell which one contained the energy saving lightbulb, and which one they preferred.
Out of 761 shoppers, 53 per cent either got it wrong or could not spot the difference, despite 70 per cent of shoppers being confident that they would be able to spot the energy efficient lightbulb before they did the test. The shoppers were not told whether they had guessed right, but 64 per cent of people claimed to prefer the light produced by the energy efficient light bulb.
"I think the results are extremely encouraging and go to show just how much the quality of light from energy efficient lightbulbs has improved since they were first introduced. Not only that, but there are now a far wider range of energy efficient bulbs available, including dimmers. The days of bulky, ugly looking energy efficient bulbs, which gave poor light quality are long gone. Clearly, the public have had their own ‘lightbulb’ moment too, with sales of energy efficient lightbulbs jumping from 10 million in 2006 to 21 million in 2007."
Philip Sellwood, Chief Executive, Energy Saving Trust
Maybe the solution is bulb amnesties in the streets of Britain where you can get rid of your old 100W bulbs in exchange for a free energy saving bulb, that way the county would be rid of those high wattage bulbs, from of course the people willing to give them up.
Related Articles
Voluntary Bulb Ban Initiated
The CFL Mercury Myths
Mercury in CFLs in Context
LED Night Lights
4 comments:
The extra energy used by incandescent bulbs is radiated as heat - energy cannot be destroyed. If you use CFLs you are just offsetting the energy saved against your heating bill !
I am all for energy efficiency but needlessly replacing incandescent bulbs which are still working is a waste of energy and resources.
It is true that the excess energy used in incandescent bulbs is radiated as heat, however this is negligible, you may not require that heat in that form at that time.
Especially during Summer, it could have a negative impact, on say your air con usage, should you be using that.
Of course if you are using thermostat controls the little heat generated from incandescent bulbs will offset a small fraction of your heating bills, however electricity is a very inefficient method to provide heat to your home.
I would have to differ that replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs or better still LEDs is needless. According to the Carbon Trust, CFLs production carbon footprint over it's lifetime is only 1% of its total carbon footprint. Replacing your incandescent bulbs even if they are still functioning saves more energy in the long term.
As I have stockpiled over 2,500 incandescent bulbs I will not be forced into politically correct lighting. I can run every incandescent lamp in my house at the same time and use less current than one airconditioner...and where's the push to ban airconditioners and 400W plasma TV's???
As an electrical engineer, I am well aware of how CFL's work and what goes into making them. Fact is they are not a direct substitute.
1)colour spectrum is different 2)distortion of mains supply (noticed the flat topped sine wave of late?) 3)RFI with AM radio 4)some problems with some remote controls 5)unsuitable with dimmers 6)unsuitable for moist areas 7)do not acheive full light output immediately 8)sensitive to spikes on the mains supply.
CFL's already are being used in areas thay are suitable; there is no need to force citizens to use them everywhere as per a dictatorship.
1. You don't use lights much in summer, thus it is no problem to run incandescent.
2. They take more energy to produce, thus there savings make no odds.
3. They take even more energy to dispose of.
4. The resistors e.t.c in them are very cheap and often blow long before the bulb is broken.
5. You have a problem if you smash them.
6. This is another example of being a nanny state.
Post a Comment