Thursday, September 3, 2009
Incandescents phased out in the EU
This week begins the phasing out the sale of incandescent bulbs in the EU. The reason for the phase-out is to bring the EU closer to their goal of cutting green house gas emissions by 20 percent by the year 2020. The standard replacement for the out-of-vogue incandescent is the compact fluorescent lightbulb (CFL). A transition to CFLs offers the potential for large energy savings, because of their increased efficiency compared to incandescent bulbs: CFLs have a typical emission efficiency of 60 lumens per watt compared to 15 lumens per watt for incandescent bulbs. For more information, see our resources page on lighting. Among the concerns raised by opponents of the switch (EU officials are "depriving children of traditional fairground lights") are some more serious concerns about the mercury content of the bulbs (see again our resources page for a quick primer). The amount of mercury contained in each CFL is significantly smaller than the mercury typically emitted through combustion of fossil fuels used to produce the additional energy required to light the incandescent bulb being replaced. A key word here is `contained'; the mercury in the bulb is indeed contained whereas the mercury emitted during energy generation is distributed in the environment where it can find its way into the food supply and eventually our bodies. If the CFL is broken, of course, care must be taken during clean-up. It is interesting for us to follow this story in the EU, especially since the US is set to begin a similar phase-out in 2012.
2 comments:
I would certainly agree that there is a lot of unnecessary hysteria around the ban,
and although I disagree with the ban,
I agree that power station emissions should be dealt with - and for all else they contain, whatever about CO2
Which brings us to the point here...
MERCURY
A. CFL mercury compared to coal power mercury emissions
CFL mercury is a bigger problem than coal power mercury emissions
The often repeated argument that emissions are worse, was only ever true where untreated coal power use dominated.
In the USA like the EU and Canada,
vigorous mercury emission control programs are in place
(using new injection and photochemical techniques as well as so-called wet scrubbers)
= USA EPA for example overseeing
90% reduction by 2018, as confirmed by new EPA administrator Lisa Jackson early 2009.
More:
http://www.ceolas.net/#li198x
In a nutshell:
1. We know where the ever decreasing local coal power stations chimneys are and we can treat their emissions with ever increasing efficiency at lower costs.
2. Compare that with billions of scattered broken lights on dump sites, when we do not know where the broken lights will be, and so we can't do anything about them
CFL refund chemes would alleviate but not solve the problem, as shown by low European compliancy.
B. Mercury as a health problem
Sometimes ridiculed, stringent EPA recommendations of what to do when a bulb breaks was more than confirmed by recent Maine state testing
See
http://www.ceolas.net/#li191x
.
The other point is regarding the supposed energy savings of a ban...
I'd like to put this in a broader context.
Europeans, like 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 tubes were banned... they were bought less anyway.
Supposed savings don't hold up for many reasons:
Just a few examples here:
CFL Lifespan is lab tested in 3 hour cycles. That does not correspond to real life usage and numerous tests have shown real life type on-off switching reducing lifespan. Leaving lights on of course also uses up energy, as does the switch-on power surge with CFLs
Also, CFLs get dimmer with age, effectively reducing lifespan
Power factor: Few people know that CFLs typically have a power factor of 0.5 - that means that power stations use up twice as much power than what the CFL rating shows. This has to do with current and voltage phase differences set up when CFLs are used.
Although consumers do not see this on their meters, they will of course have to pay for it on their bills.
This is explained with official links including to US Dept of Energy here:
http://ceolas.net/#li15eux
Heat benefit from using ordinary incandescent light bulbs
http://ceolas.net/#li6x
Room heat substantially rises to the ceiling (convection) and spreads downwards from there. Another half of more of supposed switch savings are negated in temperate climates, as shown via the above link with US and other research references.
Conversely,
if energy use does fall with light bulb and other proposed efficiency bans and electricity companies make less money,
they’ll simply push up the electricity bills to compensate:
(especially since power companies often have their own grids with little supply competition)
Energy regulators can hardly deny any such cost covering exercise...
Emissions?
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.
A direct effective way to deal with emissions (for all else they contain too, whatever about CO2):
http://ceolas.net/#cc10x
The Taxation alternative
A ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.
We are not talking about banning lead paint here.
Even for those who remain pro-ban, taxation to reduce consumption would make much more sense, since governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.
A few euros/dollars tax that reduces the current sales (EU like the USA 2 billion sales per annum, UK 250-300 million pa)
raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.
It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.
http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html
However, taxation is itself unjustified, it is simply better than bans also for ban proponents, in overall emission lowering terms.
Of course an EU ban is underway, but in phases, with reviews in a couple of years time...
maybe the rising controversy of it will influence American debate?
Post a Comment