Greenpeace petition for Ireland to ban inefficient lightbulbs

telecaster

I received an emailed newsletter from greenpeace today advising me off their online campaign encouraging Ireland to take a lead in banning inefficient lightbulbs.

I imagine most people on this forum will support it, so here's your chance:

LINK HERE

Antenna

Greenpeace page says: "Ireland currently has the highest energy consumption per household for lighting in the EU."

that's hardly much of a surprise considering our geographic position, having such a lack of daylight in the winter?

By all means encourage CFLs for applications where lighting is left on for long periods of time, but a total band on traditional bulbs is a nonsense?

One is better off using traditional bulbs for applications where lighting is only switched on for short periods of time - such as a storage area etc - A CFL's lifespan is greatly reduced by frequent switching - consider also the fact much more energy is required in producing CFLs compared to traditional bulbs - overall for some uses the benefits are outweighed by the drawbacks.

Some applications need immediate brightness (think of a doctor switching on a light to look at an X-ray), which CFLs, at present, do not provide.


The claimed energy saving of CFL use is effectively much less in countries of a colder climate (such as Ireland). Traditional bulbs use more energy, but all this extra energy is given off as heat. However with this heat source removed (by a change to CFLs) the central heating will be on more to maintain the status quo, the increased heating energy requirements will skew the figures greatly

Also unlike traditional bulbs, CFLs contain mercury - its bizarre that, whilst on the one hand the public is encouraged to use CFLs, there is at the same time no publicity about the vital need of appropriate disposal of these items.

Somnus

Wow... I was gonna sign it but this post ^ Has changed my mind...

Capt'n Midnight

I thought the Govt had already committed to phasing out incandescent light bulbs

slack

Hi,

I work for Greenpeace, and before I get into what CFL's are good or bad for, I wonna point out that the campaign is not about CFL lightbulbs. It's not even about incandescent lightbulbs. It's just about energy efficiency, which is about saving money and fighting climate change.

Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL) are the most popular energy saving lightbulbs these days, but there's also LED and other technologies out there too. We're not advocating any technology in particular -- just high standards, so we don't waste energy.

The Wikipedia page on CFLs, and Greenpeace International's Lightbulbs Q&A page answer many of the concerns you've raised:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/solutions/energy_efficiency/lightbulbs-q-and-a

Frankly, I think LED bulbs look much nicer and futuristic than the garden variety CFLs on the market... but there's even CFLs available in some shops already which come in all shapes and sizes and do all sorts of crazy stuff.

Waste management was been a headline issue in our discussions with the Irish government about making a lightbulbs law. CFLs do contain mercury, it's true, and so they need to be disposed of properly when they stop working. Same as mobile phones and all other electrical and electronic waste that contains heavy metals and other hazardous materials.

If the lightbulb law requires radical improvements in waste management and public awareness of toxics, then all the better! The environmental and public health movement will continue to campaign on both global warming and toxics.

Antenna wrote: »

Greenpeace page says: "Ireland currently has the highest energy consumption per household for lighting in the EU."

that's hardly much of a surprise considering our geographic position, having such a lack of daylight in the winter?

By all means encourage CFLs for applications where lighting is left on for long periods of time, but a total band on traditional bulbs is a nonsense?

One is better off using traditional bulbs for applications where lighting is only switched on for short periods of time - such as a storage area etc - A CFL's lifespan is greatly reduced by frequent switching - consider also the fact much more energy is required in producing CFLs compared to traditional bulbs - overall for some uses the benefits are outweighed by the drawbacks.

Some applications need immediate brightness (think of a doctor switching on a light to look at an X-ray), which CFLs, at present, do not provide.


The claimed energy saving of CFL use is effectively much less in countries of a colder climate (such as Ireland). Traditional bulbs use more energy, but all this extra energy is given off as heat. However with this heat source removed (by a change to CFLs) the central heating will be on more to maintain the status quo, the increased heating energy requirements will skew the figures greatly

Also unlike traditional bulbs, CFLs contain mercury - its bizarre that, whilst on the one hand the public is encouraged to use CFLs, there is at the same time no publicity about the vital need of appropriate disposal of these items.

Taildragon

I am leaning toward the opinion that a ban on incandescent lighting is an inappropriate way to address energy consumption.

As a (very) early adopter of CFL technology (I have one CFL that cost me in excess of €55 equivalent in 1997!), I had great hopes for the potential changes in energy consumption that appeared to be possible.

However, the goalposts have moved. Market forces have intervened, and CFLs are now largely manufactured in the far east by the lowest bidder - the reliability and longevity have plummeted IME, and I very much doubt that the environmental controls on their manufacture would pass European standards.

I am an alternative technology geek, and have struggled to find a way to feed CFLs in a truly efficient manner from an off-grid type of supply. I also have to admit that I dislike the light that they provide (and I have tried many, many types from different manufacturers); admittedly that is a personal bias.

The greatest argument, however, against a "world of CFLs" has to do with a concept known as "power factor". Simply put, a CFL of (say) 20 watts needs to be supplied from a source capable of up to 5 times that capacity. In other words, we would still need power stations capable of supplying the needs of incandescent bulbs.

LED lighting technology shows great promise, and does not suffer from the same drawbacks as CFL, but it has a long, long, way to go before it is a practical replacement for Mr. Swan and Mr. Edison's incandescent technology.

Thought provoking article here:
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

ircoha

First thanks to Taildragon for the wonderful link.

I spent the last 20minutes or so searching for a laymans explanation on power factor. The following is not too techy.
http://www.homeenergy.org/archive/hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/93/931113.html#93111328

The article, penned in 1993, makes 2 interesting points.

They thought that they would have CFL's with suitable power factor electronics on board by 1994!

Including the ballast in the lamp like they do with most CFLs and the halogen GU10's is not the way to go as the ballast will normally last 3 to 4 times longer than the light generating part.
[The ballast is, in simple terms, all the extra crap you get in a CFL that u dont get with an incandecent bulb.]

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-lighting-ballast.htm

The final point is that excess heat shortens the life of the ballast so the longer life of the CFL's will not be reached when fitted with the ballast above the lamp.

I can personally vouch for that: when the fittings are in a standard lamp type set up they last much longer than in a ceiling.

ircoha

slack,

I was going to cut you some:), until I read this

Greenpeace page says: "Ireland currently has the highest energy consumption per household for lighting in the EU."

I would like to see how this number is crunched when u consider that the Nordic countries and SantaLand are in darkness for much longer than we are.

Are we that far behind them?

Capt'n Midnight

We should move to CET to give us the extra hour in the evenings in winter

other things to look at are PIR / Noise activated lights that turn off when not in use handy for security lamps though a one minute delay would be better

I can remember seeing drops of mercury in old fluorscent tubes, thankfully they don't use as much now and beryllium for the phosphors stopped back in the 50's

power factor is a red herring , one kettle would smooth out most of that, and besides it's possible to redesign the electronics to get arround that. PC's TVs hifi and all such electrical stuff has the same problem, motors like washing machines and power tools too.

slack

ircoha wrote: »

slack,

I was going to cut you some:), until I read this

Greenpeace page says: "Ireland currently has the highest energy consumption per household for lighting in the EU."

I would like to see how this number is crunched when u consider that the Nordic countries and SantaLand are in darkness for much longer than we are.

Are we that far behind them?

We got those stats from a European Commission source, published on the International Energy Agency website:

Source: "Residential Lighting Consumption and Saving Potential in the Enlarged EU", Paolo Bertoldi, European Commission DG JRC, https://www.iea.org/Textbase/work/2007/cfl/Bertoldi.pdf

Basically, it's because we have lots of light points per household in Ireland, plus we don't use energy saving lightbulbs enough.

(Ireland is "EI" on the charts and tables in that document... makes sense)

ircoha

Slack, thanks v much for the link: much obliged: need to look at it in detail.

In passing do you have any data on power consumption of central heating pumps and boilers please?

I found this on alarms
http://www.energyrating.gov.au/library/pubs/sb200415-burglaralarms.pdf

the site itself has loads

ircoha

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I thought the Govt had already committed to phasing out incandescent light bulbs

yes but there are 4 committees looking at how many people will it take to change each bulb as if there are 2 many, the CO2 from the effort may exceed the lifetime reductions from the new cfls

The_Minister

Taildragon wrote: »

Thought provoking article here:
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

I know nothing about engineering, but from what I understood of that, he seems to be talking alot of sense, and many of his arguements seem reasonable. Is what he saying truthful, or is it like a Michael Moore film? (or an Al Gore one )

ircoha

I agree, as does the EU re power factor,

Power Factor (now under consideration: power shall not be less than
0.9 for the lamps claiming to be ‘High Power Factor’ or shall not be
less than 0.55 for all the other lamps)

from "Residential Lighting Consumption and Saving Potential in the Enlarged EU", Paolo Bertoldi, European Commission DG JRC, https://www.iea.org/Textbase/work/2007/cfl/Bertoldi.pdf

The problem is, as noted earlier in this post that there is some very crap CFLs around.
I will be keeping my icannies for the mo.

10-10-20

Commented to wrong thread...

Wertz

As someone who get's a chance to see the interiors of other people's houses, through my work, I can tell you straight off the bat why it is we have this figure for power usage for lighting; every new house I go into these days has a plethora of halogen downlighters dotted around each ceiling. In many cases this is throughout the house. I've seen average sized kitchens with 12 lights. Twelve.
...and because they're downlighters most of the reflected light is wasted.
Way back when, you'd have maybe 3-4 incan. bulbs at most in a room and in most cases it's be less than that. Also, not all of these may have been on at the same time....with the halogens that isn't the case....most people seem to put them all on (possibly because with less it's not bright enough). These same houses usually have a fair bit of "soft" lighting too; usually several incan. bulb lamp standard tucked in a corner festooned in fabric.

This trend isn't going away. Quite the opposite.
I realise that halogen lamps use slightly less actual wattage compared to normal bulbs but the point that homes have more than double the number kind of writes that off.

I have a big problem with CFL currently. Price is one; cheapest I can find them is aldi for around 4 quid. I can buy 30 incandesants for that. If you want to try and force people to use CFL then the price needs to come down further; subsidise if necessary.
Flicker is another. I'm very susceptible to fluroescent flicker, it gives me a headache in extreme cases. I've experienced this is friend's houses where a CFL is burning.
Last issue; the fact that it takes a fair bit of energy to kick start the fluoresence...in a house like mine, where we flick lights on and off as we move from room to room, this may in fact lead to more energy consumption....and as CFL's chance of failure rises with the number of times they're switched on/off, they may actually end up costing even more than they should.


Surely what's needed in the case of lighting V energy debate is better use of what lighting we have now.... to utilise all available natural light by fitting skylights or bigger windows in new homes/extensions. In the case of artificial lighting, more mirrors and reflective surfaces and other such measures to reduce the amount of actual light energy required to illuminate a room.

BTW a big concern for incandescent and halogen fans alike; tungsten is a relatively rare and finite resource and is almost impossible to reclaim from old bulbs. I don't think we're facing any sort of shortage for now, but it's something to keep in mind...

Taildragon

I'll apologise in advance to those not interested in the nuts & bolts of this stuff - this is tecchy:)

Maxim are a world leader in the area of power supply devices - their products are inside of all manner of electronic equipment (including many CFLs). Their "lab rats" have come up with a new product that appears to take the development of LED lighting one step closer to becoming a viable alternative to the incandescent bulb.

Edition 61 of the Maxim Engineering journal

Link: http://pdfserv.maxim-ic.com/en/ej/EJ61.pdf

10-10-20

Great link, thanks for that.
We should setup an elecrtonics forum...!

2 stroke

Yeah, that was a little too technical.
I purchassed some 2.5 watt led GU10 down lighters today, Approx €10. They are equivalent to 50 watt GU10. Very happy with them, as far as I see they give a better light.

ircoha

2 stroke wrote: »

Yeah, that was a little too technical.
I purchassed some 2.5 watt led GU10 down lighters today, Approx €10. They are equivalent to 50 watt GU10. Very happy with them, as far as I see they give a better light.

Where is the evidence that

2.5w LED .....are equivalent to 50w GU10

?

2 stroke

Ircoha. Thats what it says on the box. And I am quite happy with the results. Should last much longer than cfl and no toxic component as far as I know.
We will soon see these superbright LED in other bulb types.

ircoha

2 stroke wrote: »

Ircoha. Thats what it says on the box. And I am quite happy with the results. Should last much longer than cfl and no toxic component as far as I know.
We will soon see these superbright LED in other bulb types.

Perfect: where u source them please?

2 stroke

ARRO shop in portlaoise.

slack

btw, GU10 just refers to the type of bayonet mount typically used for halogen bulbs.

ircoha

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

....power factor is a red herring , one kettle would smooth out most of that, and besides it's possible to redesign the electronics to get arround that. PC's TVs hifi and all such electrical stuff has the same problem, motors like washing machines and power tools too.

What is the ratio of kettles to CFLs: seems pretty stupid that we go from incando's to CFLs to save energy and then plug in a kettle.:D

mike65

Bump! Olde School bulbs to be banned from Jan 2009.

Mike.

ircoha

Now that the Green Minister has banned 'old style' incandescent bulbs, is it time to collect pictures of what the range looks like?

here is my contribution, with a ton of Carbon Tax Credits to the best guess at the wattage:D

Yoda

I see that Solus has a range of the old-style CFL bulbs. I like the more bulb-like ones from Philips better but it's nice to see that Solus is moving with the times.

blackbox

May the saints preserve us from these well-meaning fools.

Someone phoned the Last Word yesterday to point out that there is no energy saving in a thermostatically controlled environment.

Now, one could rebuff this argument by stating that this only applies when there is a net heat requirement (i.e. only 9 months of the year), or that it only applies to indoor lighting, but Gormless actually said that he never heard of this! Where does he think the shagging heat goes?

These people seem to have a faith based agenda (mumbo jumbo) rather than any scientific rationale behind their actions.

SeanW

There is also the fact that some applications still require incandescent lightbulbs - such as cupboards and attics where the lights will only be used for small amounts of time, decorative and/or coloured lighting, dimmerswitches and older light fittings such as outdoor fittings that aren't physically big enough for a CFL. There are also, as mentioned here, some people who are sensitive to flourescent flicker.

It would have made more sense to abolish VAT on CFL lights while taxing incandescents to the point where noone will buy them unless they have a specific need for them.

silverharp

Personally I will be taking stock of the various replacement bulbs I will need and will then buy a 5-10 year supply of the bulbs that won't be allowed. As I have some unusual light fittings I don't want to dump them as they cost good money and would need to repaint if the fittings were removed.

good points that in the winter your heating system would compensate for the lack of heat from the bulbs. In the greater scheme of things the measure would seems to be a token gesture.

If they want to do something useful they need to get to variable pricing ideally hourly to manage demand to take into account wind speed etc.