Greenpeace petition for Ireland to ban inefficient lightbulbs

10-10-20

I'm very lucky in that I just purchased 4 lamp fittings 2 weeks ago and I got a sniff of what was around the corner, so I chose fittings which would take CFL's and rejected any of these halogen capsule units which are so common these days... Bad idea those!

Antenna

There are two sides to this debate, but a decision has been arrived at with only one side being heard.

I don't recall any public consultation taking place before this decision being made to ban incandescent bulbs?

Why has there been no trial of a selected number of Irish households (to convert ALL their incandescent lighting) and see how they get on, before planning to foist such a ban on the whole country?

Why should Ireland be the Guinea Pig for the rest of Europe for such a upheaval? We are currently the only EU country with a date for a complete ban in the near future.

blackbox wrote: »

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?

Exactly, we will be manually turning on heating more often (or heating will be coming on more often in the case of thermostatically controlled heating) to make up for the loss of heat from incandescent bulbs.
The 3 or so months without any need for domestic heating are months with minimal need for domestic lighting being on anyway (and this ban is a mainly a domestic issue, as retail, offices, factories etc generally use fluorescent lights)
Looking at the whole picture (both heat and light), the claimed energy savings in a domestic setting for a climate such as ours will in practice be considerably less than that as is claimed. SEI I suspect looked purely at the light energy given off by bulbs, and not at heat, and the knock on effect on heating needs....

It would make more sense for any such ban to be introduced in more southernly European countries with hot climates first – where the heat given off by incandescent bulbs is generally unwanted (unlike Ireland where this heat usually contributes to desired space heating), and so the quoted energy savings would be more realistic.

There are other issues that could be looked at, such as educating the public as to the most appropriate lighting for their various needs and discouraging inefficient recessed lighting as used in many modern homes

The words ‘soft target’ and ‘barking up the wrong tree’ come to mind.


CFLs are unsuitable for applications that need immediate bright light, and unsuitable for applications where lighting is only turned on for brief periods.
(frequent switching of CFLs -> life considerably reduced to about that of incandescent - and when the extra energy used in both manufacture and appropriate disposal – if it happens at all - of mercury etc in CFLs is taken into account, incandescent are surely the greener option in this application.)
CFLs are also unsuitable for security etc PIRs (the manufacturers clearly say so in the instructions).

Amongst other things, I see the following undesirable results of this ban:

(1) Householders stockpiling huge quantities of bulbs before the ban
(2) Bulbs being purchased in Northern Ireland after the ban and being brought south. No concrete plans for such a ban in the UK. Retailers in the south being put at a disadvantage.
(3) People might start using 12V Automotive incandescent bulbs (which I assume are not covered by the ban?) for light fittings within homes via appropriate transformers.

Yoda

I was in Iran, China, and Indonesia this year and pretty much the only bulbs you see are CFLs. Unfortunately they just let them hang bare which is fairly harsh.

As each incandescent bulb in my house burns out, I just replace them with a CFL. What's the problem?

AngryHippie

Yoda wrote: »

As each incandescent bulb in my house burns out, I just replace them with a CFL. What's the problem?

That would not gain any stupid politicians brownie points with their green electors

oops

Yoda

Yoda wrote: »

I was in Iran, China, and Indonesia this year and pretty much the only bulbs you see are CFLs. Unfortunately they just let them hang bare which is fairly harsh.

As each incandescent bulb in my house burns out, I just replace them with a CFL. What's the problem?

A commonsence solution, but the only problem is with some lamp fittings that don't take CFL or any other type of low energy lamp without looking "wrong".

A more sensible solution to banning ineffient bulbs would be to make ALL new lamp shades (insert type of low energy here!) friendly.

Ciaran500

Deleted User wrote: »

A more sensible solution to banning ineffient bulbs would be to make ALL new lamp shades (insert type of low energy here!) friendly.

Don't buy the ones that don't take CFL's and they will stop making them.

Ciaran500

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Don't buy the ones that don't take CFL's and they will stop making them.

Try telling my wife!
For too many people, looks are all important!

ircoha

Deleted User wrote: »

Try telling my wife!
For too many people, looks are all important!

Now you have it.:)

Was at dinner last night where all the shades on the table lamps were black:eek:.

100watt candies and only the ceiling and the table got lit!

ircoha

OK: combustion C + O2 = CO2

The trees absorb the CO2 and use the carbon for 'body=building'
What happens the O2? Is it used as well?
If so what is the process?
when the trees are burned the carbon they absorbed during their life-time is released so thay are carbon neutral.

I remember when I was born, the nurses brought the plants into the ward during the day and brought them out at night: do plants release CO2 at night, so what is the net 'CO2 math" or are we looking for CFL Trees:D

Red Alert

Power factor issues are pretty much a non-issue, a suitable capacitor will deal with the problem. I think the time has come too for micro-flourescent enclosures - i.e. light fittings for CFL-type bulbs where the ballast and starter are part of the fitting, not the lamp.

Hoagy

ircoha wrote: »

I remember when I was born, the nurses brought the plants into the ward during the day and brought them out at night

Wow that's some memory. Can you go any further back? The womb, maybe?

10-10-20

Just before I start - I'm not having a go at you here; you are voicing the concerns of the nation, I'm just trying to look at a differing perspective!

Antenna wrote: »

There are two sides to this debate, but a decision has been arrived at with only one side being heard.

I don't recall any public consultation taking place before this decision being made to ban incandescent bulbs?

Why has there been no trial of a selected number of Irish households (to convert ALL their incandescent lighting) and see how they get on, before planning to foist such a ban on the whole country?

Why should Ireland be the Guinea Pig for the rest of Europe for such a upheaval? We are currently the only EU country with a date for a complete ban in the near future.

I agree, but as the minister said, necessity is the mother of invention and the industry has just started to embrace the CFL and LED technologies, so changes are a-foot. Only in the last 5 months were mini CFL's available for SES (Small Edison Screw) and SBC (Small Bayonet Connector) under €10.

Of course there are going to be issues finding LE lamps suitable to replace 100% of fixtures; did you ever try put a CFL into an ornate light fitting to find that it destroys the aesthetics and throws out homogeneous light, ill suited to the surroundings? Try put a cheap and early CFL into a downlighter and compare the light output to GU10 bulbs. You quickly turn a light fitting from aesthetically-pleasing functional light-source into a glaring, industrial-type fitment, at odds with a residential environment.
Well, these are the issues that we, the consumers, will have to deal with in the short-term. Industry will work to supply new technology and designs and the consumer will push-back forcing change.
It's going to be a two-way process, push and pull. I'd suggest you work with your local DIY store to encourage them to start to become inventive with their supply lines or even with how they sell or describe CFL's. Seemingly, no two brands are the same in light output.

Exactly, we will be manually turning on heating more often (or heating will be coming on more often in the case of thermostatically controlled heating) to make up for the loss of heat from incandescent bulbs.

The implication here is that people are actively using incandescent lamps are a source of heat in a residential environment.

The 3 or so months without any need for domestic heating are months with minimal need for domestic lighting being on anyway (and this ban is a mainly a domestic issue, as retail, offices, factories etc generally use fluorescent lights)
Looking at the whole picture (both heat and light), the claimed energy savings in a domestic setting for a climate such as ours will in practice be considerably less than that as is claimed. SEI I suspect looked purely at the light energy given off by bulbs, and not at heat, and the knock on effect on heating needs....

It would make more sense for any such ban to be introduced in more southernly European countries with hot climates first – where the heat given off by incandescent bulbs is generally unwanted (unlike Ireland where this heat usually contributes to desired space heating), and so the quoted energy savings would be more realistic.

In my mind, not all of the heat given off by incandescents is not contributory to the actual heating (ambient) for one main reason - Within a room, bulbs are not physically located in suitable positions to be considered ambient heat sources. Think about it - why aren't radiators placed on ceilings?
Having a 'heat source' near to the ceiling causes localised heating of the plasterboard, and the heat is not distributed around the room through convection.
Then you may say that the room above the light source will benefit from the heating. True to a point, assuming you want the heat there?
You could also say that some of the heat is radiated around the room, true, but it's so small that it's possibly less than 15%.

<cut>
CFLs are unsuitable for applications that need immediate bright light, and unsuitable for applications where lighting is only turned on for brief periods.
(frequent switching of CFLs -> life considerably reduced to about that of incandescent - and when the extra energy used in both manufacture and appropriate disposal – if it happens at all - of mercury etc in CFLs is taken into account, incandescent are surely the greener option in this application.)
CFLs are also unsuitable for security etc PIRs (the manufacturers clearly say so in the instructions).
<cut>

All this is true, that's why LED's are getting so much attention. They are the next step in terms of lighting and once manufacturers overcome thermal issues surrounding the dissipation of heat (ironically enough!) they are likely to send the CFL the way of the Dodo.
LED's by their nature force designers to think about the way they work with light - they are very directional unlike CFL's, and at present they must be used in groups to achieve the same lighting as standard bulbs.

But, they may also force changes in how we use light also.
Imagine a light which maintains the same level of lighting in a room whether the blinds are open or closed. Imagine being able to switch from cool blue, outdoor colours during the day, to warm oranges at night or tinted hues of purple based on your mood. It's all more possible with LED's than ever before.

AngryHippie

Thats a forward looking post there, good work.
I agree with much of it
I still resent not being asked by the government about this, It should have been put to the people.
I agree as to the potential of LEDs and CFL's, And as to nay-sayers comlaining about fittings, They are so easy to change, The day You can't find a lightbulb to fit your fitting, maybe change it. It'll be a fire hazard by then anyway !

still_raining

I think a ban is absolutely impractical, a tax increase or something would have been more suitable. What about the mercury? This is from the EPA in the US:
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#flourescent
They want me to leave the room for 15 minutes after I break a bulb!
What about dimmer switches?
Photographers who can't have flicker in their shots?
Those tiny bulbs on chandeliers?
Not to mention those of us that can actually see the headwrecking flicker!

Oh well, I guess it's off to ebay after 2009 for all my incandescent needs.

casey212

This lightbulb thing is a total scam. The new lightbulbs will cost much more than the old ones, and probably last for a shorter periods.

Greenpeace? Who funds greenpeace?????????

Maybe you should research this before you proclaim how great they are.

People need to snap out of this brainwashing. I would love to see you all in ten years when you have no rights left, not even allowed to enter the countryside. Read "AGENDA 21". This is the plan for your future.

How does it look, green??

10-10-20

casey212 wrote: »

This lightbulb thing is a total scam. The new lightbulbs will cost much more than the old ones, and probably last for a shorter periods.

To quote Wikipedia: "CFLs use less energy and have a longer rated life"
& "a CFL can save over US$30 in electricity costs over the lamp’s lifetime compared to an incandescent lamp and save 2000 times their own weight in greenhouse gases. The purchase price of a CFL is higher than that of an incandescent lamp of the same luminous output, but this cost is recovered in energy savings and replacement costs over the bulb's lifetime."

CFLs are rated by their power and life expectancy. If you are experiencing issues with the quality and lifetime of these bulbs, you can perhaps look at your usage behavior or environment.

Greenpeace? Who funds greenpeace?????????

Have a look at the section "Where does Greenpeace get its funding from?" on http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/faq/questions-about-greenpeace-in

Maybe you should research this before you proclaim how great they are.

People need to snap out of this brainwashing. I would love to see you all in ten years when you have no rights left, not even allowed to enter the countryside. Read "AGENDA 21". This is the plan for your future.

How does it look, green??

I don't think that you attitude helps your cause.
Maybe you could take time to explain what you see as being the 'hidden agenda' here as Agenda 21 looks harmless to me... "Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests"
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm

casey212

10-10-20 wrote: »

To quote Wikipedia: "CFLs use less energy and have a longer rated life"
& "a CFL can save over US$30 in electricity costs over the lamp’s lifetime compared to an incandescent lamp and save 2000 times their own weight in greenhouse gases. The purchase price of a CFL is higher than that of an incandescent lamp of the same luminous output, but this cost is recovered in energy savings and replacement costs over the bulb's lifetime."

CFLs are rated by their power and life expectancy. If you are experiencing issues with the quality and lifetime of these bulbs, you can perhaps look at your usage behavior or environment.


Have a look at the section "Where does Greenpeace get its funding from?" on http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/faq/questions-about-greenpeace-in


I don't think that you attitude helps your cause.
Maybe you could take time to explain what you see as being the 'hidden agenda' here as Agenda 21 looks harmless to me... "Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests"
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm

What? Why do people always accept what is presented. Also contrary to what is stated on the website, greenpeace was named after the green masonic lodge.

10-10-20

Keep it on topic there Casey212 - this thread is about CFL's.

casey212

10-10-20 wrote: »

Keep it on topic there Casey212 - this thread is about CFL's.

Your right.

In my opinion CFL's are yet another big business/environmental SCAM.

casey212

mike65 wrote: »

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

Mike.

Better stock up now.

Also watch how the price of CFL's will just happen to rise rapidly over the course of the next two years when the competition is removed. Coincidence yet again.

Antenna

The proponents of the bulb ban seem to not want to know about the issue of CFLs being unsuitable for frequent switching/short duration on time. LED lighting is not a credible alternative as of now for most high level lighting applications.

I heard the bulb ban issue discussed a couple of times on RTE Radio 1 yesterday. Pat Kenny interviewing a man from SEI – mainly about other issues – but also the bulb ban: Pat Kenny, from his own personal experience mentioned the issue of frequent switching of CFL light causing premature failure, he had one in a bathroom, and despite being from a "very reputable manufacturer", its lifespan was very short. This issue seemed to be news to the SEI man (his reply was that the technology is always improving etc etc)

And again that afternoon tuned in at the end of an interview by Derek Mooney with someone from Solus (the manufacturer) who was unhappy about the timescale - and had Duncan Stewart in the studio - a listener contacted the show enquiring about the issue of frequent switching causing premature failure of CFLs to which DS replied 'I'm not so sure about that'. Another listener contacted the show about radio interference on a clockradio beside a CFL lamp when on.
The issue of recessed lighting was discussed - Stewart must have frightened a lot of listeners that apart from the lighting inefficiencies, they are also a fire hazard , and even if something else in the kitchen, etc goes on fire, the holes in the ceiling to accommodate these lights would allow the fire to spread to the rest of the house easier!

I do agree with all that is said about recessed lighting though…..it should be discouraged.

casey212

I agree. You cannot trust manufacturer rhetoric. This is an absolute scam to rip off the public once again in the face of an untruthful environmental campaign.

10-10-20

Antenna wrote: »

And again that afternoon tuned in at the end of an interview by Derek Mooney with someone from Solus (the manufacturer) who was unhappy about the timescale - and had Duncan Stewart in the studio - a listener contacted the show enquiring about the issue of frequent switching causing premature failure of CFLs to which DS replied 'I'm not so sure about that'.

Solus will be an interesting one to watch. They have 95% of their bulbs 'in the same basket' per-say, as they have incandescent bulb manufacturing here in Ireland, but I seriously don't think they are making CFLs here. It's not like they didn't have a clue that the CFL issue was going to come upon them like this! The best advice that anyone could give them would be to setup R&D and start looking a specialising in LED technology.

In relation to the frequent switching, I can only foresee LED's as being the solution here also!

Another listener contacted the show about radio interference on a clockradio beside a CFL lamp when on.

Electrical interference from a CFL implies a couple of things. Poorly designed bulb without correct EMI testing (poor application of standards), too close to radio, or poorly shielded radio.

SALE

and then we can say we've done our bit and f__k off down the pub. Not good enough

Peanut

While I agree with the general intention of reducing household energy consumption, an effective ban on incandescents just seems completely impractical.

Unlike something like the smoking ban which legislates for a restriction in a public area, how can you possibly try to enforce a ban on selling a product that is used in private homes, and available most likely anywhere else in the world? (for another few years at least..)

The fact that people will just go on to ebay or over the border to get their old bulbs renders this legislation pointless. A increase in taxes on less efficient bulbs would seem to be a better approach.

A lot of people don't like CFLs. Their quality of light, while a lot better than it used to be, often remains inferior to the more inefficient bulb types (LEDs are even worse as far as I can tell), although this may be due to cheaper, poorer quality CFLs on the market. The other arguments regarding toxic materials should also be taken into account. They have a low directionality of light vs. halogen., if directional light is required. High efficiency incandescent bulbs are being developed, but it looks like they won't be available before 2010.

If the Greens want to do something about reducing energy consumption in the home, they should be doing more to promote smart metering technology that gives people information on how much electricity they are using at a given time in terms of actual monetary cost.

A valid point was raised about the popularity of halogen downlighting..
However, it seems likely that people simply don't know how much more their shiny new downlights are costing them. With better metering, they can more easily have access to that information.

casey212

SALE wrote: »

and then we can say we've done our bit and f__k off down the pub. Not good enough

Done our bit for what?

I assume your are refering to Human enslavement.

Mike 1972

I would be generally in favour but have thought a tax rather than an outright ban would be the way to go.

The plastic bag tax was a good idea* albeit with one rather stupid flaw in that it doesnt differentiate between degradable and non-degradable plastic

A few things Ive noticed with CFL's

1) "softtone" lamps or lamps designed to look like ordinary lightbulbs are the worst in terms of warm-up time. -Avoid these like the plauge.
2) The whole "8w CFL equivalent to 40w incandecent" thing is slightly exaggurated. If replacing an incandecent go for the size above the one that claims to be equivalent to the one youre replacing. I.e. if you are replacing a 40w bulb go for the CFL that says its equivalent to a sixty
3) For some inexplicable reason it isint possible to get a CFL equivalent to a 150w or 200w incandecent (anyone know why ?????)

Arent car headlights mostly incandacent or halogen (speaking of car headlights am I the only one who HATES the ones with a "blue tinge" :mad: ) Am I going to be able to buy replacment bulbs for my car ?????

RE: The Mercury thing
1) Newer CFL's have very little of the stuff (although any amount is bad)
2) During its lifetime an Incandecent bulb actualy causes MORE mercury to be released into the enviornment. This is because a large portion of our electricity is still generated in coal fired power stations and coal contains traces of mercury (and uranium :eek: ) which gets released into the enviornment when its burned


* although baing a fairly frequent cross border traveller (and very absent-minded) I find it a bit of a nuisance rememembering that I need to take bags with me when Im in the south

ircoha

Red Alert wrote: »

Power factor issues are pretty much a non-issue, a suitable capacitor will deal with the problem. I think the time has come too for micro-flourescent enclosures - i.e. light fittings for CFL-type bulbs where the ballast and starter are part of the fitting, not the lamp.

So now we need two items, a CFL and a capacitor which itself costs as well as containing heavy metals. progress indeed.

Mercury thing
1) Newer CFL's have very little of the stuff (although any amount is bad)
2) During its lifetime an Incandecent bulb actualy causes MORE mercury to be released into the enviornment. This is because a large portion of our electricity is still generated in coal fired power stations and coal contains traces of mercury (and uranium ) which gets released into the enviornment when its burned.

This ignores the amount of energy required to make the CFL bulb and the accompanying capacitor as well as the onerous disposal issues.

The ban will seem to focus on the sale of the bulbs so it will be a bit like the ads for the oldest profession: "any money exchanged is for companionship only and not for any 'cur isteach' or similar" so they may come free with a cereal.

Mike 1972

Not all capacitors contain heavy metals.

RE: Energy taken to manufacture a CFL can anyone come up with figuures on this ? And remember were talking about comparing it with the energy required to manufacture EIGHT (give or take) ordinary lightbulbs PLUS the difference in electricity consumption throughout its/their lifetime.

On the other hand AFaIK most CFL's are manufactured in the Far East wheras most incandcents are manufactured in Northern Europe (some in Ireland) so the energy used in transport needs to be figured in as well

Taildragon

I really don't know where the idea that a simple capacitor would correct the power factor of a CFL originated. A modern CFL uses a SMPS (Switched Mode Power Supply), and it is erroneous (however commonplace) to refer to the electronics as a "Ballast", which is a term that harks back to the old "striplight" type flourescent tubes.

A CFL, unlike the old "striplight", presents a capacitive reactance to the AC power supply (the older ballasted flourescents presented an inductive reactance). It is of course possible to cancel out this reactance by adding an inductor to the circuit, and thus providing a perfect (apparent) unity power factor.

So, why don't the manufacturers do just that?

1. It adds bulk
2. It adds cost
3. It adds complexity
4. It wastes power as heat! (so your 11w CFL is suddenly a 15w+ CFL......)

I still hold that a ban on incandescents is premature and ill-conceived.