Europe’s lightbulb phase-out begins
by David Masters
August 26, 2009
Energy saving lightbulbs are set to become the norm across Europe as a continent-wide phase-out of traditional bulbs begins next month.
From 1 September, 100w and frosted lightbulbs will be phased out from shops across Europe. Shops will be able to sell-off current stock, but it will be illegal for them to place new orders for the banned lightbulbs.
The move will save an estimated 1 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year by 2020, because energy efficient lightbulbs use up to 80% less energy.
“We can no longer rely on light bulbs which waste 95% of their energy as heat,” said Dan Norris, British environment minister.
We are glad the EU has put this measure in place to stop the waste of energy and money from old fashioned high energy bulbs.
“The UK has had a successful voluntary initiative in place for a few years, and now the rest of the EU will follow suit on a mandatory basis.”
The government estimates that a typical household will save £37 per year on their energy bill by using energy efficient lightbulbs.
Discuss this in the Fair Home Forums
Related posts to "Europe’s lightbulb phase-out begins":
- Traditional lightbulb switch-off begins
- US concerned about HFC use
- Companies must act now to avoid CRC fines
3 Comments »
Leave a comment
Previous: « Scotland aims to be “zero waste” society
Next: Anti-litter campaign collects 50,000 bags of rubbish »
Visited 1857 times, 2 so far today
the ban makes no sense - from any angle, including saving emissions, or energy
(and even if that was so, taxation on bulbs would give government income with the reduced sales, unlike a ban)
I have extensively covered all the reasons why the ban is wrong
-including the politics behind it- on
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1x onwards
Comment by peter dublin — August 26, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
I agree that we must think of the environment
-however, banning light bulbs is not the way to go…
Light bulbs have been safely used for 100+ years
We are not talking about lead paint here,
and light bulbs do not give out CO2 gas (like cars)
= power stations give out the emissions, power stations can of course be dealt with directly
(CO2 processing and/or energy substitution, as is already planned anyway).
Ironically the environmentally questionable CFL lights are the one being promoted - in another world, those mercury containing bulbs would be the ones banned!
For all reasons why banning bulbs is wrong,
and why the energy emission savings arguments don’t hold up,
and for the EU and industrial background politics behind the ban
see http//www.ceolas.net/#li1x onwards
(if banning was nonetheless desired, government could gain (or could have gained) a lot of income from a tax that nevertheless reducedthe sales on the cheap popular bulbs which could be used towards home energy schemes and renewable projects, lowering emissions much more than remaining bulbs were causing them = a pound or two on reduced c.250-300 million annual sales would give substantial sums)
Comment by peter in dublin — August 27, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
Europeans and Americans choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (light industry data 2007-8)
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings - no point in banning an impopular product!
If new LED lights -or improved CFLs- are good,
people will buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio valves were banned… they were bought less anyway.
All lights have advantages….
The ordinary simple light bulb has for many people a pleasing appearance, it responds quickly with bright broad spectrum light, is easy to use with dimmers and other equipment, can come in small sizes, and has safely been used for over 100 years.
100 W+ equivalent brightness
is a particular issue - difficult and expensive with both fluorescents and LEDS - yet such incandescent bulbs are first in line for banning in both America and the EU
Small and sufficiently bright bulbs like candle lights is another problem.
Energy?
Since when does Britain/Europe or America need to save on electricity?
There is no energy shortage.
Note that if there was an energy shortage, the price rise would make people buy more efficient products anyway - no need to legislate for it.
Energy security?
There are usually plenty of local energy sources,
Middle East oil is not used for electricity generation, 1/2 world uranium exports are from Canada and Australia.
Consumers - not politicians - pay for the energy used.
Certainly it is good to let people know how they can save energy and money - but why force them to do it?
Emissions?
Most cars have emissions.
But does a light bulb give out any gases?
Power stations might not either:
Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
Low emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.
Also, the supposed savings,
can be questioned for many reasons:
For example, official research (Energy Star, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Berkeley University and other institutions) question the power rating, lifespans, brightness, energy usage, and overall usage savings with CFLs
see http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x
onwards
Even for those who remain pro-ban, taxation to reduce consumption would make more sense, since government can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.
A 1-2 pound/euro/dollar tax that reduces the current sales (EU 2 billion per annum, UK c. 250-300 million pa), raises future billions, and retains consumer choice.
Taxation in itself is hardly needed, and wrong for similar reasons to bans - it’s just preferable to bans.
Comment by peter in dublin — August 27, 2009 @ 8:39 pm