The ban of incandescent light bulbs in the EU has been motivated by the fact that they are 75% less eco-friendly than compact fluorescent light bulbs, plus CFL’s last 10 times longer so they not only save on energy consumption and cost, but the light bulb very quickly pays for itself through its savings.
Little by little, nations worldwide are doing their part to reduce their environmental footprint, and this is one way that the EU is hoping to do their part!
The European Union is on the cutting-edge of green technology; already ahead of many nations through its introduction a ban of incandescent light bulbs that began on September 1, 2009. The ban of these incandescent light bulbs has a goal of reducing region-wide energy costs through use of the more eco-friendly compact fluorescent light bulbs instead.
In order to move forward with this ban of incandescent light bulbs, the EU is not allowing retailers in the area to purchase these lighting options which take a known toll on the environment and our household energy costs. With fairness in mind, however, retailers are allowed to continue to sell incandescent light bulbs that they already have in stock. By implementing this ban, the EU is hoping that it will contribute to their goal of reducing greenhouse gasses by 2010 and will convert the population to becoming more energy-efficient in their line of thinking. THe public has not reacted entirely favorably to this ban, protesting that they have the right to choose their own lighting options in their homes; but meanwhile, the United States is watching closely to see how well received it is since a similar initiative will be underway in 2012.
The ban of incandescent light bulbs in the EU has been motivated by the fact that they are 75% less eco-friendly than compact fluorescent light bulbs, plus CFL’s last 10 times longer so they not only save on energy consumption and cost, but the light bulb very quickly pays for itself through its savings. Little by little, nations worldwide are doing their part to reduce their environmental footprint, and this is one way that the EU is hoping to do their part! More >>>
www.350.org"
Posts
.jpg)
2 comments:
Unlike many people here in Europe against the ban,
I agree with the need to do something about emissions
(for all they contain, whatever about CO2)
But banning light bulbs is in my view not the way forward,
and I think people who are less in agreement with
the background arguments will just be turned off from cooperating in more important environmental measures.
Let's think a little about this!
Europeans (like Americans- and maybe people in the Cayman islands?)
choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (European Commission and 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 etc - 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/tubes were banned… they were bought less anyway.
The need to save energy?
Advice is good and welcome, but bans are another matter...
people -not politicians – pay for energy and how they wish to use it.
There is no energy shortage - on the contrary, more and more renewable sources are being developed -
and if there was an energy shortage, the price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products – no need to legislate for it.
Supposed savings don’t hold up anyway, for many reasons:
http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x
onwards
about CFL brightness, lifespan, CFL power factor, lifecycle, heat effect of ordinary bulbs, and other referenced research
Brief examples
Effect on Electricity Bills
If energy use does indeed fall with light bulb and other proposed efficiency bans,
electricity companies make less money,
and 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...
- in which case money savings affected
Conversely:
Since energy efficiency in effect means cheaper energy,
people simply leave appliances on more than before This has actually been shown by Scottish and Cambridge research, as linked on the website
(in the case of CFLs they're supposed to be left on more anyway, to avoid cutting down on their lifespan)
- in which case energy savings affected
The fact that they are not as bright as stated is another reason against supposed savings
See comparison test
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6110547/Energy-saving-light-bulbs-offer-dim-future.html
Also, since lifespan is lab tested in 3 hour cycles, any increased on-off switching reduces it, as does (as said) leaving the lights on to combat it.
More:
CFLs typically have a "power factor" of 0.5
Power companies therefore typically need to generate more than twice as as much power
than what your electricity meter - or CFL rating - shows, taking everything into consideration.
Of course you end up having to pay for this anyway, in electricity charges being higher than they otherwise would have been.
Without going into technicalities, this has to do with current and voltage phase differences set up when CFLs are used.
There is nothing new or strange about this
Industries are today penalized if they present such a work load to the power station.
(continued)
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.
How to deal directly with emissions (for all else they contain too, whatever about CO2),
with a focus on transport and electricity:
http://www.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.
This is simply a ban to reduce electricity consumption.
Even for those who remain pro-ban, taxation to reduce the consumption would be fairer and make more sense, also 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.
When sufficent low emission electricity delivery is in place, the ban can be lifted
http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html
Taxation is itself unjustified, it is simply a better alternative for all concerned than bans.
Of course an EU ban is underway, but in phases, supposedly with reviews in a couple of years time...
Maybe the debate in USA and Canada and elsewhere, including the Cayman Islands, will be affected by the issues being raised over here?
Post a Comment