European Union Bans Incandescent Light Bulbs
EU energy ministers meeting last week in Luxembourg have given final approval to an EU-wide ban on incandescent light bulbs that would begin in 2010. The switch to energy-saving bulbs, first ordered at last year’s Brussels summit as part of an aggressive energy policy to fight climate change, was approved at the negotiations leading up to a meeting of European heads of state, being held next week.
>>More on European energy policy at RG&B
Traditional incandescent cost around 1/3 as much as standard compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs). But the CFLs last longer and use less energy while illuminated. Incandescent filament light bulbs use up to five times as much energy as standard CFLs.
Advocates claim that replacing the worst-performing lamps with today’s best available technology will reduce domestic energy consumption for lighting by 60 percent; equivalent to preventing 30 million tons of CO2 pollution every year. The move would help EU member states meet their proposed emissions reductions of 20% by 2020, targets that may currently be in question because of the lingering economic crisis.
Not everyone is enthusiastic about switch the CFL technology. Opponents to the measure argue that the fluorescent bulbs take a long time to warm up and sometimes have a tendency to flicker. The bulbs are also too big for some (very) old-fashioned fittings and are generally more expensive - although the EU has vowed costs will come down before 2010. CFLs also carry the added baggage of potential health risks and environmental problems because of the mercury found in each bulb.
However, all of the arguments used against compact fluorescents cannot be levied against LED technology. Light emitting diodes, are said to be brighter, safer, and longer lasting than even the best CFL technology. However, until the cost of LEDs comes down, a large-scale switchover to that technology remains several years away. But with directives like this latest one from the EU, it is quite likely that the price of LEDs will come down as businesses ramp-up development and production.
The new light bulb scheme will initially apply to bulbs of 75 watts and higher and the phasing out of the traditional bulbs will come into effect beginning March 1, 2009.
Image credit: laszlo-photo via flickr under a Creative Commons License
Very well written indeed.
Oh, well so nice to know the EU is “protecting” us. Where would we be without it?!
Absolutely dumb idea. An example of people that have no idea what they are doing trying to look good.
Sure, CFL’s are great for alot of lighting applications. However not all. Most notably in applications where lights will be turned on and off frequently, the life of the CFL decreases 80-90%. At that time any energy savings and feel goodery are lost by adding unecessary mercury to the environment. Not to mention it just outright costs more.
its talked around easily in the article, and not adressed- does it give more than it takes? is the output of energy more than the intake? ( including marketing and distribution?) tax? what can you afford a ban on? this one is easy, whats next…..careful
I’ve heard that this is going to happen and it’s a total over reaction. The incandescent bulb is a better product than the florescent in many applications. It turns on instantly, while many of the florescents I buy take up to a minute to achieve full brightness. It does’t contain poisonous gasses internally. It’s cheap and proven.
I’m not an energy waster - I have changed most of my lights to floresent, but on the ones where I need instant illumination, I have retained the good old incandesent.
Europe might be better focusing on other energy wasters, such as all the bazillions of AC/DC adapters left plugged in with noting attached or other unused appliances just sitting there sucking juice, or inefficient AC, ect. This is just too much regulation.
http://www.cellular-phone-batteries.com/
The mercury in the cfl should be of great concern. Yes they cost less by lasting longer, but won’t these savings be lost due to the cost we will incur to clean up the mercury when they are disposed of in our landfills. Even now municipal garbage collection sites do not know what to do with mercury filled parts i.e.: thermostats. I was told they are being “held” and not going into landfills. But what will the average household do with these bulbs. We will simply toss them into the trash and that goes where????? Lets stop and really look before we leap, its that called prudence which we should expect from our legislature leaders.
What is almost never mentioned about energy efficient lighting is the temperature control issue. Where I live (Northern Ireland) there is usually only about one month when the outside temperature is high enough that I would like to have air-conditioning at home. In my opinion that is the only time when energy efficient lighting makes sense. When a lamp is not very efficient, much of the energy it consumes is dissipated as heat which helps (in a small way) to heat my home. If the lamp is more efficient, then the thermostat turns up the heater a little bit. Where exactly is the saving?
For outdoor lighting it’s different. There’s not a lot of point in heating the streets.
Compact fluorescent bulbs are large energy savers and money savers. For the average U.S. home lighting is the second or third largest home energy use and the first or second largest electric use. Changing lighting from standard lightbulbs to fluorescent can result in the single largest and most cost effective electrical energy saving in a home, resulting in as much as 14 million Btu’s per year or 2.5 barrels of oil equivalent. The amount of mercury in each bulb is smaller than this period-.! This is less mercury than is released into the atmosphere from coal power plants powering a conventional lightbulb!
We switched to Fluorescent bulbs chiefly for economic reasons! The run very much cheaper, last a lot longer, and give similar enough light to justify the savings. The Europeans are trying to stretch an already over-loaded nuclear based electric system. They will also advocate microwave cooking and plug in cars to re-arrange energy consumption. Here in America, where oil, gasoline, electric power and natural gas are really free, we don’t have to concern ourselves with saving anything, not even the environment, because we have a President that can change the value of the world’s unit of trade, the dollar bill, on a whim, thus printing more money than we will ever need to buy energy! Wake Up America, Last Call, Last Call!
Although C.P.F’s/C.F.L.’s do contain mercury, the ammpount is pifflingly small, less than 3mg for most models and some manufacturers are aiming for less than 1mg per lamp. Compared to conventional fluorescent tubes, sign tubes, high pressure mercury and sodium lamps and metal halide lamps, which contain about 100 microgrammes per watt of lamp power, and many of which have been in use for nearly 70 years, this is supprisingly good for a technology which is unlikely to last for more than a decade. L.E.D. sources will untimately replace C.F.L.’s, amd these contain mo Mercury at all, they do, however contain vinishingly tiny quantities of Arsenic ans Antimony.
To place it in perspective a bottle of Mercurochrome topical antiseptic contains enough Mercury to make at least 50 C.F.Lamps, and Mercury has been used in many types of lamps, other than C.F.L.’s for a long time. Small amounts of Mercury, ingested or inhaled as vapour can be eliminated from the body by consuming large amounts of garlic and onions, which contain amimo acids with sulphur containing groups wwich bind to the Mercury cerating a compound of Mercury which is easily excreted. Mercury is an element, (Atomic Number 80 on the Periodic Table), and as such, has always been pesrent on Earth ans always will be, it is just a matter of concentration and location. (In some volcanic areas, Mercury vapour is emitted from subterranian heated Mercury compounds and minerals in considerable quantity.) So, in a nutshell, the small quantity of Mercury in C.P.F.’s should be respected, not feared.
AS for the banning of relatively innefficient incandescent filament lamps, governments suould legistlate a pricing structure which increases the price sharply for the most inefficient models, thus people requiring thes lamps for special purposes, such as egg incubator warming, pyrometers or special projection apparatus, can still continue to obtain lamps, albeit at an increased price. Sales of the most inefficient models will decrease to the point that they will become economically unviable, and dissapear from the market.