Greener Lights?

Greener Lights? moves

2010-01-11T11:41:00.001+01:00

This blog has now moved to http://greenwashinglamps.wordpress.com/

The reason is that Blogger is impossible to work with, especially after the latest update. Anything that includes any sort of formating takes about 3-5 times as long while exhausting one's supply of curses as Blogger randomly moves parts around and adds spaces and html script that wasn't requested. The size button is wrongly configured ('small' generates x-small and has to be changed manually in the code) and the html version of pages is just a jumbled mess, requiring superhuman patience to sort out. WYSIWYG in Bloggerish means that you don't get what you see, you get something altogether different.

And no support whatsoever, just a forum where no one replies to the million+ user complaints, and a link to the software creator bragging about his great work and ignoring all the complaints about it in his comments section.

Enough of this, I need a hassle-free 2010 so I've exported this blog to wordpress and fixed the formating with their more reliable and user-friendly tools. I'll still leave these archives up for those who have linked to this site, but will continue blogging at wordpress.

http://greenwashinglamps.wordpress.com/

Welcome there!

New EU Ecodesign Directive

2009-12-22T10:19:00.003+01:00

Finally a look at the crucial parts of the Euorpean Union's recently amended (Oct 2009) Ecodesign Directive:

5. Implementing measures shall meet all the following criteria:

(a) there shall be no significant negative impact on the functionality of the product, from the perspective of the user;

With CFLs, the user gets a poorer quality light with mediocre colour rendering, sensitivity to heat, cold, moisture, frequent switching, dimmability problems, recycling difficulties etc. With WLEDs, a very dim light with strange light colour and suboptimal colour rendering and very high purchase price. With clear class C Halogen Energy Savers, glare. With clear class B Halogen glare, higher EMFs, and very high purchase price. Thus, this condition is not fulfilled.

(b) health, safety and the environment shall not be adversely affected;

CFLs can not be considered safe for health or environment as long as they are breakable and contain mercury vapour. There are also many patient groups, an estimated 250 000 light sensitive people in EU, which SCENIHR thinks will be adversely affected, and anecdotal evidence for even more patient groups reporting subjective discomfort or ill-being in FL/CLF light. Thus, this condition is not fulfilled.

(c) there shall be no significant negative impact on consumers in particular as regards the affordability and the life cycle cost of the product;

LEDs, class B Halogen lamps and top quality & dimmable CFLs are still prohibitively expensive to buy, even if they allegedly last longer. Thus, this condition is not fulfilled.

(d) there shall be no significant negative impact on industry’s competitiveness;

(e) in principle, the setting of an ecodesign requirement shall not have the consequence of imposing proprietary technology on manufacturers; and

(f) no excessive administrative burden shall be imposed on manufacturers.

I'll leave that part for manufacturers to comment, in the remote chance that they find anything to complain about.

As A, B and C are clearly not fulfilled, the incandescent phase-out is illegal and should be revoked - preferably before manufacturers have time to dismantle their local bulb factories.

Member states could still follow Peter Thornes' advice and agree to put an extra tax on the poorest performing bulbs so that they cost at least as much as their halogen replacements. That way people would probably buy a longer lasting energy saver, especially if frosted halogen bulbs were made available again. When LEDs become good enough and affordable enough, many will buy those instead. No need for the Commission to meddle.

Except to ban naked tube CFLs for private use, as they are a potential hazard to health and environment both. And xenon HID lights for cars, for safety reasons. And ineffective and low quality mercury vapour street lights & halophosphate FL tubes, for which there are much better replacement both quality- and quantity-wise.

EU CFL FAQ 2 - Part III b

2009-12-22T02:29:00.003+01:00

Comments to part III:12-17 of the EU FAQ #2.

Compact fluorescent lamp environmental impact issues

EU FAQ: III.12. Ecobalance over the life cycle

More materials and energy are needed to produce a compact fluorescent lamp than an conventional incandescent bulb, and it also results in more waste at the end of life. Does this not outweigh the benefits of its energy efficiency?

According to the technical study ordered by the Commission to prepare for the regulation on household lamps (http://www.eup4light.net/), the impact of energy savings during the use of a compact fluorescent lamp clearly outweigh the environmental impact of its production and its end-of-life. Therefore using them rather than conventional incandescent bulbs reduces the overall energy use and the environmental impact of lighting.

My comment: I've read this study and find it flawed, biased and questionable on more counts than I can count. Here are just a few of the more obvious points:

1. Putting clear and frosted GLS in separate classes, despite the difference in output being virtually non-existent and all other things the same, while the widely varying CFL models (bare, covered, dimmable, outdoor, daylight, improved CRI etc) with their equally varying quality levels, efficacies, applications and life spans get represented by one (!) class and (top notch) CFL type only.

2. Using unusual (average, rather than existing) lamp wattages for incandescent lamps, 54W GLS and 13W CFL as base-cases, both with incorrect lumens for their wattage-class, according to leading manufacturer catalogues.

3. Incorrect (too short) life span for typical low-voltage halogen lamps, skewing comparison with other lamp types.

4. Overly optimistic estimations of CFL recycling rates ("20%" in all of EU).

5. Like most pro-CFL 'studies', this one does not count the mining process for the mercury and phosphors (stating a "lack of info" on that part of the process). A reader commenting a mercury article online appears to know more: "To produce purified mercury in a CFL, the extraction process releases about 0.4mg for every milligram produced into the waterways, atmosphere, and soil as waste. This is a well-established worldwide average that includes many processes, both crude and hi-tech. This means that the 4mg in the CFL actually represents 5.6mg of mercury that enters our environment."

6. Making distribution impact estimates on the assumption that all lamps are produced in Europe, while fully aware that most CFLs are produced in Asia:

VITO: "The distribution phase contributes more than 5 % of the life cycle impacts for 11 of the 15 environmental impact indicators. Impacts of this phase are the highest for the emission of PAHs (69 %), heavy metals (22 %), volatile organic compounds (VOC) (21 %), and particulate matter to air. This can be explained by the assumption related to transport in trucks from the retailer’s central warehouse to the shop. (...) according to the MEEuP methodology (section 5.3.6, page 96), a mix of means of transport (trucking, rail, sear freight and air freight) with assumptions on distances was used for all base-cases. This assumption could be considered as disadvantageous for lamps mainly produced in Europe (e.g. GLS-F and GLS-C) and advantageous for lamps produced in Asia (e.g. CFLi)." [emphasis added]

7. Not including the energy used to recycle the mercury.

VITO: "Collected CFLi’s at end of life are crushed in a closed installation and sieved. The mercury containing fraction is distilated at 600°C to separate the mercury. The pure, metallic mercury is used again by lamp industry."

8. Not including all the forced individual driving to remote recycling stations for householders who wish to leave their CFLs for recycling, or to the few retailers who have a recycling program, and then from them to the recycling stations, then transportation from recycling stations to reprocessing factories and from reprocessing factories back to the lamp factories. As Peter Thornes points out on his website, when the lamp industry has their CFL production located in China, that's where the mercury has to be shipped back to:

"However, it is not just the energy requiring manufacture (after all, CFLs have longer lifespans, which gives some compensation). It is also the greater emissions from their longer transport from the fewer centra in which CFLs are economical to make (China), and it is also the further CFL transport emissions to recycling plants and the emissions of their reprocessing there, and the further transport of reprocessed parts to different locations. This means that inter-continental transport between China and North America/Europe can take place twice, since CFL content including mercury may be shipped back to China for reprocessing and new manufacture. Even more significantly, shipping use of bunker oil, the worst CO2 emitting type of oil, greatly increases the emissions involved (more)."

Sounds like an awful lot of driving, shipping, processing and polluting, doesn't it?

9. Not including the future costs of brain damaged babies, learning disabled children or lowered general health and mental function of coming generations through slow mercury poisoning of the entire population after millions of CFLs end up in landfills.

III.13. No need to remain on to save energy

Is it true that because of high energy use at start-up, compact fluorescent lamps have to remain switched on for 45 minutes before they bring any energy saving at all?

It is not true that energy saving lamps do not provide energy savings when switched on only briefly. The energy use of compact fluorescent lamps in the first 2 to 3 seconds of their operation is slightly higher, but after that their power uptake is stabilised. In practice, they provide energy savings compared to incandescent bulbs right from the moment they are switched on. Nevertheless, compact fluorescent lamps might not be the proper choices for some applications. If the lamp is switched on both briefly and rarely, the energy savings will counterbalance the higher purchase price of the lamp only very slowly, over several years or even decades. In such a case the much cheaper improved incandescent bulbs with halogen technology should be used. If the lamp is switched on briefly and frequently, it may reduce the lifetime in the case of some compact fluorescent lamps. This functionality is also addressed by the regulation, requiring that compact fluorescent lamps should reach the claimed life time while being switched on/off once for every hour of operation. Where frequent on/off switching is likely, dedicated compact fluorescent lamps that can endure up to 1 million switching cycles, or other energy saving light sources insensitive to switching can be used (such as improved incandescent bulbs with halogen technology which will also remain available). If this is a feature consumers are concerned about, they should look out for the information on the product packaging, where the manufacturers will be required to display the number of times the lamp can be switched on before failure.

In other words, this still is a problem with many CFLs, so use standard CFLs only in lamps that you usually have turned on for longer periods at a time.

III.14. Mercury content and the environment

Compact fluorescent lamps contain mercury, a hazardous material, conventional incandescent bulbs do not. If more compact fluorescent lamps are used, does it not mean more mercury pollution in the EU?

Mercury is present in compact fluorescent lamps in such a small amount that during its lifetime a compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) will have saved more mercury emissions from electricity production in coal power plants (compared to the mercury emissions related to the conventional incandescent bulbs’ electricity need) than is contained in the CFL itself.

This clever PR argument was created in 1991 as part of the organised global anti-lightbulb campaign. It was based on Danish coal use which at that time was the highest in Europe (95%) and a ridiculously low theoretical CFL mercury content of only 0.69 mg. EU as a whole uses much less coal now (29%), and some contries none at all. (See my post Mercury problem even worse than suspected for more details.)

Even incandescent-hating consultant firm VITO, when trying their best to find fault with the incandescent lamp and benefits in CFLs in the preparatory study, was unable to produce more than the most marginal Hg reduction (10.9%) when comparing the best performing CFL base-case with the poorest performing GLS base-case and assuming a Hg content of 4mg and an optimistic recycling rate of 20% across EU. Considering the fact that most CFLs used at home don't perform nearly as well or last as long as the nominal values for that state-of-the-art naked tube CFL (as measured after 100 burning hours in optimal lab conditions, at optimal temperature and burning position wihtout shades) which is always used as base-case CFL, one can safely assume even this small number to be exaggerated as well.

If one wishes to stop mercury emissions, the most logical thing would be to phase out the use of coal (and gold mining!) rather than phasing out an arbitrarily chosen consumer product that uses less than 1% of total energy consumption and contains no toxic substances on its own.

Moreover, CFLs should be recycled according to EU legislation already in place.

Yes, they should. But "should" does not mean they will be. Some have more pressing matters on their daily agenda than safely recycling their lamps. Even in countries with good recycling schemes many peope aren't aware that CFLs should be recycled (about half the Danes did not know this as of January 2009). Getting them to a recycling station for hazardous goods is no easy thing, especially if you're elderly or don't have a car.

http://greenerlights.blogspot.com/search/label/CFL%20recycling

Mercury is an important component of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) that plays a key role in their energy efficiency and also other parameters such as lifetime and warm-up times. There are up to 5 milligrams (0,005 grams) of mercury contained in a CFL (compared to 50 milligrams in button batteries, 500 milligrams in dental amalgam filling or several grams in older thermometers). The 5 mg limit is set in the Restriction on Hazardous Substances Directive (2002/95/EC), which in general forbids mercury in electric and electronic equipment, but provides some exemptions in duly motivated cases. The limit is enforced by Member States equally on all bulbs, whether they are cheap Chinese ones or produced by European manufacturers.

But even the Commission's own consultants in their Domestic Lighting Study found one sample of five tested to contain 6.4 mg - assumed due to manual hand-dripping in Chines non-automated factories - and the Maine DEP found a range of 0.9 to 18 mg! Mercury in CFLs

Compact fluorescent lamps have been widely used in European homes in the past decade, they will not be introduced by this regulation.

But they will be more or less mandated by this regulation as they are not used widely enough in the Commission's opinion.

Most office and public buildings, and also most streets have been equipped for the last 50 years with fluorescent and high-intensity discharge lamps containing mercury (often much more than compact fluorescent lamps).

But in in public buildings and street lights, the lamps are placed much higher in luminaires that cannot be knocked over, and there are usually routines for recycling them properly after use. But they are of course only safe as long as there are no earth quakes, fires or other disasters. After the 9/11 attack on New York, rescue workers have been getting sick, some from mercury poisoning! Assumably from all the florescent lights breaking as the twin towers went down.

Gotham Gazette: The Heroes Of 9/11 Are Getting Sick

"Detective James Zadroga was inside 7 World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001. He escaped –- barely –- when the building collapsed. But Zadroga could not escape the damage done to his body by the hundreds of hours he spent at Ground Zero cleaning up the rubble in the following weeks. On January 5 of this year, Zadroga died from lung disease and mercury poisoning – a condition that hasn't been a widespread occupational hazard for over a century when hatters were sickened as they dyed beaver pelts."

The directive only mandates shops to take back CFLs and other electronics if one buys a new one at the same time (great way to keep consumption going). Some shops have volunteered to take them back without such strings attached, but that is their own choice. When calling around to check, many of these retailers had no idea that Hg vapourises at room temperature and had no routines for avoiding CFL breakage in recycling bins until informed of this fact! Unfortunately, I've not been able to provide every shop in Europe with this information. I think it is the responsibility of the Commission to make sure all are informed.

The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (2002/96/EC) provides for the collection and recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipments (WEEE), including lighting equipment such as compact fluorescent lamps. (...) If consumers take back their burned-out compact fluorescent lamps to collection points just as they do with batteries, the mercury content will be recycled and not released to the environment.

Member States have to ensure that users of electrical and electronic equipment are given the necessary information about the requirement not to dispose lamps as unsorted municipal waste and to collect such waste separately, as well as about the return and collection system available to them. Member States are also responsible for ensuring the availability and accessibility of collection facilities.

Quite a hefty obligation costing extra resources which poorer countries may not have!

The Commission also proposed to recast the WEEE Directive on 3 December 2008, so that the collection target for all WEEE is increased and the recycling target for gas discharge lamps is set at the level of 85%. This proposal will now go to co-decision with the Council and the European Parliament.

Good. Why not recommend a refundable recycling fee, such as already exists for bottles and cans for all goods containing toxic elements? That would surely increase recycling rates. And don't forget to inform that CFLs must be kept from breaking!

Improved incandescent bulbs with halogen technology that do not contain any mercury are and will remain available, however they provide 25-45% energy savings compared to conventional incandescent bulbs, whereas compact fluorescent lamps save up to 80%.

Not this again! Up to 65-75% according to your own statements earlier, remember? Unless we bring things like power factor, light deprication, frequent switching and cheap imports into the calculation... then it goes down to about the level of the best halogen energy savers.

LEDs (light emitting diodes) are a rapidly emerging mercury-free technology, meeting or even surpassing compact fluorescent lamps in efficiency. However, at this stage they are not yet developed enough to be valid alternatives to the full range of household conventional incandescent bulbs (mainly available in low light outputs only, equivalent to 25W conventional incandescent bulbs).

Right. And the light colour is even worse than in CFLs.

It can be expected that in the next few years they will develop to become replacements for most existing lamps, however there is no absolute certainty about that and we need to act on climate change right away with the products that are already on the market. Nevertheless, the Commission is financing research into LEDs for general lighting through the ongoing and future calls of the EU's 7th Research Framework Programme. The proposed regulation will be revised at the latest 5 years after adoption, and due account will be taken of the state of development of the LED market.

Good. But you're not going to save the planet by forcing CFLs on a public which has very good reason to be reluctant! Promoting CFLs so much stronger than Halogen Energy Savers will only create more problems down the line and, as mentioned previously, is already causing a health and environmental disaster in China!

Compact fluorescent lamps and health

III.17. Effect on light sensitive people

The light produced by compact fluorescent lamps aggravates the symptoms of people suffering from auto-immune diseases such as lupus and ME. They now use conventional incandescent bulbs in their homes, if these are phased out will they be left in the dark?

The Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (on a mandate from the Commission services) has been looking into the question of possible health effects of compact fluorescent lamps on people with certain diseases and on the general public, following up to complaints from certain patients' associations. The Committee examined flicker, electromagnetic fields (EMF) and ultraviolet / blue light radiation from the lamps to determine whether they aggravate the symptoms of such patients.

In its report, the Committee found no evidence that would indicate that either EMF or flicker could be a significant contributor. For the general public, very close exposure to a bare lamp (< 20 cm) for more than 8 hours could eventually affect health by exceeding workplace limits on UV emissions. This is a situation that does not occur in normal use. Hands held very close to halogen lamps or touching conventional incandescent lamps get burnt much more quickly because of the intense heat, so such a situation is not usual anyway with household lamps.

On the other hand, according to the report the symptoms of a maximum of 250.000 people in the EU suffering from diseases accompanied by light sensitivity could be aggravated in the presence of bare compact fluorescent lamps (independent of distance) due to UV and blue light emissions. Using commonly available compact fluorescent lamps with a second lamp envelope can both solve the problem of light-sensitive patients and prevent overexposure of the general public even in extreme situations. However, the envelope slightly lowers (about 10%) the efficacy of the compact fluorescent lamp, meaning more lamps using more power will be needed for the same light output. Transparent or translucid luminaires that fully cover up the bare lamps have the same effect as a second lamp envelope.

Also alternative technologies can be chosen by consumers, such as improved incandescent bulbs (with halogen technology) that have identical light spectrum to conventional incandescent bulbs.

In addition, the ecodesign regulation on non-directional household lamps introduces maximum UV emmission limit values for compact fluorescent lamps.

Good. But the estimated 250.000 light sensitive people will still be victims of the potentially aggravating naked CFLs in environments they have no personal control over, now not just in office buildings but in more and more restaurants, shops and people's homes, restricting their lives even more than before.

III.18. No effect on epilepsy and migraine

Is it true that compact fluorescent lamps produce light through high frequency discharges causing flicker and triggering attacks on people suffering from epilepsy or migraine?

The Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (on a mandate from the Commission services) did not find proper evidence underpinning any negative health effects relating to flicker. The Committee examined flicker, electromagnetic fields (EMF) and ultraviolet / blue light radiation from the lamps to determine whether they aggravate the symptoms of such patients. In its report, the Committee found no evidence that would indicate that either EMF or flicker could be a significant contributor. Modern compact fluorescent lamps operate at frequencies so high that they are beyond human perception.

Hm, this is what the SCENIHR report on light sensitivity actually says:

"Fluorescent lamps can cause eye-strain and headache (Wilkins et al. 1991). Patients with migraine show somewhat lowered flicker fusion thresholds during migraine-free periods (Kowacs et al. 2004). In addition, photophobia, which is an abnormal perceptual sensitivity to light experienced by most patients with headache during and also between attacks, is documented in many studies (Main et al. 2000). People with migraine claim to be particularly sensitive to blue light (European Lamp Companies Federation). Conclusion: Migraine can be induced by flicker in general (up to about 50 Hz) and patients are light sensitive during and between attacks [Evidence level A]. Scientific support for aggravating symptoms by flicker from fluorescent tubes was not found [Evidence level D]. There is anecdotal evidence of problems with blue light [Evidence level D]."

Lack of proof is not the same as proof of lack. There may also be other properties to CFLs that make them ill tolerated by sensitive people, e.g. glare, fluorescence, spiky spectral distribution, dull light that causes eye strain etc.

Compact fluorescent lamps provide light that flickers at a frequency of about 60 kHz (60 000 Hz). There is consensus that flicker of such high frequency is not perceptible to the human eye. It is already doubtful whether flicker at 100 Hz can be perceived. It is true that compact fluorescent lamps produce also some weak modulation at 100 Hz, however this is not unique to this lamp type. As SCENIHR writes, also incandescent bulbs emit a low-intensity "flicker" at 100 Hz, simply because this is twice the frequency of the mains voltage electricity network (the power being delivered to the lamp peaks twice per cycle).

A. It is not at all doubtful whether flicker at 100 Hz can be perceived by some. Swedish studies have shown extra sensitive individuals to perceive flicker above the normal threshold around 90 pps (I personally know several who claim to have this debilitating superability).

B. It is true that most CFLs sold today are of the high-frequency ballast type with a 60 KHz flicker rate, far above anything even the most perceptive human would be able to see. However, there is a wide range of human sensibility and I don't think we can exclude the possibility that the bodies of exceptionally sensitive or sensitised individuals can subliminally perceive this extremely fast flicker and react to it as a stress factor, if not as a visible modulation. Quite a large number of people report headaches, migraine, stress or general discomfort triggered by fluorescent light, I'm sure they can't all be imagining this, even if science has yet to find a plausible explanation? People with allergies, migraines and hypersensitivities tend to eventually become very apt at noticing what factors trigger their symptoms. Why should they not be believed?

C. Just a couple of days ago I was surprised to be able to see several CFLs flickering in a dimly lit restaurant. I asked the staff about this and they said it was because the CFLs were slightly dimmed. This perceptible flicker was enough to cause a headache in an extra sensitive girl in our company.

D. Correct that incandescent lamps also flicker but as the filament keeps burning between pulses, this reduces the flicker to a more even light flow. I have yet to hear of a flicker sensitive person reacting to incandescent light.

III.19. Electromagnetic fields

Is it true that compact fluorescent lamps generate electromagnetic fields and should not be used as bedside lamps or desk lamps where they are too close to the human body?

Long answer: There is no scientific evidence of any link between the electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted by compact fluorescents lamps and the symptoms of "electrically sensitive" people. EMF emissions from CFLs are within international limits on public exposure to EMF. Upon request of the European Commission, the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) has recently issued an opinion on Light Sensitivity, namely with regard to the possible aggravation of already existing symptoms of patients with certain diseases due to the use of compact fluorescent lamps.

The issue of electromagnetic hypersensitivity due to the use of such lamps has been examined. SCENIHR concluded that it has never been conclusively and convincingly shown that there exist any connections between electromagnetic fields (EMF) and the symptoms that are reported by persons with so-called electromagnetic hypersensitivity, although their symptoms are real and in many cases severe.

There is no scientific evidence of correlation between EMF from compact fluorescent lamps, and symptoms and disease states. SCENIHR also stated in its recent opinion on Health Effects of Exposure to EMF that the emissions from compact fluorescent lamps have been investigated recently and that available results showed compliance with existing limits. The levels decrease drastically beyond 30 cm from the lamps. In any case, compact fluorescent lamps available on the market have to fulfil the requirements of Directive 2006/95/EC on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits.

Well, CFLs do emit more EMFs than incandescent lamps, I think we can agree on that, or there wouldn't be any need for regulation. As for electrosensitivity, again I think people know their own bodies best. That studies have not been able to prove a link could be explained by poor test design, and by who gets funding to conduct such studies.

Also alternative technologies can be chosen by consumers, such as improved incandescent bulbs with halogen technology but without integrated transformer, which only generate the same type of electromagnetic fields as conventional incandescent bulbs.

Right. So class C halogens without integrated transformer need to be kept available for the allegedly electrosensitive after 2016, or they will have no option at all left, apart from candles and stinking kerosene lamps.

III.20. Mercury content and health

Compact fluorescent lamps contain mercury, which is a highly toxic substance. Do compact fluorescent lamps represent a danger to health because of that?

Mercury is an important component of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) that plays a key role in their energy efficiency and also other parameters such as lifetime and warm-up times. There are up to 5 milligrams (0,005 grams) of mercury contained in a CFL (compared to 50 milligrams in button batteries, 500 milligrams in dental amalgam filling or several grams in older thermometers). The 5 mg limit is set in the Restriction on Hazardous Substances Directive (2002/95/EC), which in general forbids mercury in electric and electronic equipment, but provides some exemptions in duly motivated cases. The limit is enforced by Member States equally on all bulbs, whether they are cheap Chinese ones or produced by European manufacturers.

But the Commission's own consultants found one sample out of five to contain more than 5 mg... Who will check if all imported lamps stay within limits?

Compact fluorescent lamps have been widely used in European homes in the past decade, they will not be introduced by this regulation. Most office and public buildings, and also most streets have been equipped for the last 50 years with fluorescent and high-intensity discharge lamps containing mercury (often much more than compact fluorescent lamps).

As I've already pointed out, in offices lamps are are placed in the ceiling, in environments with adults only, whereas CFLs are meant to go in every possible luminaire at home if the Commission has its way, including floor and table lamps which can easily be knocked over by children, pets and at parties.

The mercury content cannot escape from CFLs, except in the event of accidental breakage of the lighting tubes. In that case less than 5 milligrams of mercury could be released.

The "5 milligrams" is an average. Some contain less, some more.

The Ecodesign regulation requires manufacturers to explain on their websites how consumers should clean debris in case the CFL's tubes accidentally break, and to include on the packaging of each lamp the link to online explanations. Such an explanation is already available on the website of the European Lamp Companies Federation. In short, if the lamp breaks accidentally, if possible air the room before cleaning the lamp with a wet cloth, avoid skin contact with debris and do not use a vacuum cleaner.

Assumably this one: ELC Mercury Factsheet (not easy to find on their website). Let's see what it says:

"Since energy saving fluorescent lamps are made of glass, care should be taken when handling them. Always screw and unscrew the lamp by its base, and do not forcefully twist the lamp into a light socket by its tube. Breaking an energy saving fluorescent lamp is extremely unlikely to have any impact on your health. Proper cleanup and adequate ventilation minimize the impact even further. If a lamp breaks, switch off the electricity and ventilate the room for 20-30 minutes. Broken lamps should be removed, preferably with protective gloves, and be placed in a sealed plastic bag in the disposal bin. Avoid using the vacuum cleaner to remove the broken parts."

Not a very impressive clean-up guide... It downplays both proven dangers of mercury and the contamination level that may occur. The Maine DEP tests found that:

"Mercury concentration in the study room air often exceeds the Maine Ambient Air Guideline (MAAG) of 300 nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3) for some period of time, with short excursions over 25,000 ng/m3, sometimes over 50,000 ng/m3, and possibly over 100,000 ng/m3 from the breakage of a single compact fluorescent lamp" "Although following the pre-study cleanup guidance produces visibly clean flooring surfaces for both wood and carpets (shag and short nap), all types of flooring surfaces tested can retain mercury sources even when visibly clean. Flooring surfaces, once visibly clean, can emit mercury immediately at the source that can be greater than 50,000 ng/m3. Flooring surfaces that still contain mercury sources emit more mercury when agitated than when not agitated. This mercury source in the carpeting has particular significance for children rolling around on a floor, babies crawling, or non mobile infants placed on the floor." *

The ELC also gives incorrect (=dangerous) advice about debris storage! The Maine DEP testing found plastic bags and even plastic containers to be insufficient to prevent Hg vapour leaking out and contaminating everything around.

"Surprisingly, plastic jars, like large peanut butter containers with screw top lids were little better than plastic bags, also failing to prevent mercury vapour from leaking into the house. The best method of containing bulb waste is inside a glass jar with a hermetically sealed lid."

Mercury in CFLs

Should EU not have the same recommendations; that

"homeowners consider not utilizing fluorescent lamps in situations where they could easily be broken, in bedrooms used by infants, small children or pregnant women, or over carpets in rooms frequented by infants, small children or pregnant women."

And will EU require a label on the box stating the mercury content, warning about use around children pregnant women and explaining what to do and not to do in case of an accident?

Buying commonly available CFLs with an outer non-breakable lamp envelope is another way to address the issue of mercury leakage in case of accidental lamp breakage.

Right. So why not ban any CFL that has not got a non-breakable envelope and amalgam technology to keep people and the environment safe? Because some of the major producers don't have such an option yet? Or because that would make the CFLs more expensive and slightly less efficient, which is more important issues than people's health..?

Consumers who would particularly worry about mercury can choose alternative technologies such as improved incandescent bulbs with halogen technology, which do not contain mercury.

Not if they want a frosted bulb, as all frosted bulbs are now banned.

III.22 Light spectrum and public health (UV, hormones, cancer etc)

Does the specific light spectrum of compact fluorescent lamps make them a threat to public health?

The Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (on a mandate from the Commission services) has been looking into the question of possible health effects of compact fluorescent lamps on people with certain diseases and on the general public, following up to complaints from certain patients' associations. In its opinion, the Committee concluded that for the general public, very close and prolonged exposure to a bare lamp (< 20 cm) could possibly affect health by exceeding workplace limits on UV emissions. According to the United Kingdom's Health Protection Agency, less than 10% of the bare lamps exceed workplace limits in 8 hours of exposure at 20 cms from the lamp 14 , and none in 4 hours. This is a situation that is not very likely to occur during normal use, as experience with today's household lamps suggests.

Earlier studies have found an increased risk for melanoma on some working people working indoors under fluorescent tubes in the ceiling, compared with people not working under FL.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(82)90270-7/abstract
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/135/7/749

III.23. Safety issues and signs of end of life

Are compact fluorescent lamps safe for use? Is it normal if there is a bad odour or smoke when they are switched on, or if they emit an audible noise?

Compact fluorescent lamps placed on the EU market have to comply with the product safety legislation of the EU (notably the General Product Safety Directive 2001/95/EC and the Low Voltage Directive 2006/95/EC). Industry and international standardisation organizations established harmonised safety standards for compact fluorescent lamps many years ago and are periodically reviewing them. These standards provide presumption of conformity with product safety legislation in the EU. Compact fluorescent lamps should be replaced at the first sign of any odour, smoke, audible noise, or in case of erratic behavior such as flashing, flickering that may indicate an electrical component failure. If this happens clearly before the lifetime indicated on the packaging has elapsed, the lamp should be returned to the manufacturer or retailer for possible further analysis.

Good advice! Doesn't make them sound very safe, though.

EU CFL FAQ 2 - Part III a

2009-12-22T00:24:00.001+01:00

Here are comments to part III:1-11 of the FAQ#2. Part II was not relevant enough to comment, but anyone interested can read it for themselves here.

EU FAQ: III. Compact Fluorescent Lamp issues

III.1. Advantage of using compact fluorescent lamps

A compact fluorescent lamp offers:
- up to 80% energy saving compared to an conventional incandescent bulb
- about 60 € cost savings over its lifetime
- a lifetime of at least 6-10 years (compared to 1-2 years for conventional incandescent bulbs)
- no risk of burning due to the lamp's operating temperature
- a wider choice of colour temperatures (cool or warm light, conventional incandescent bulbs can only be warm light)

Still desperately trying to find something good to say about the CFL, I see, as if the Commission were actually selling them instead of just defending an unpopular law. Well, we've already established that the best save theoretically 66-75%, in reality even less with all the below mentioned factors included. Thus, the other calculations must be adjusted downwards to reflect this.

III.3. Quantity of light

Is it true that compact fluorescent lamps produce less light than conventional incandescents?

Compact fluorescent lamps can produce just as much light as conventional incandescent bulbs. Consumers should check the product packaging to buy lamps of the appropriate power and light output. Currently, exaggerated claims are often made on the packaging about the light output of compact fluorescent lamps (e.g. that a 11-12 Watt compact fluorescent lamp would be the equivalent of a 60 Watt conventional incandescent, which is not true). The regulation will introduce restrictions on equivalence claims made on the product packaging, in order to keep the claims reasonable.

This is good! Will the Commission also quit making false claims about "80% savings" which, as mentioned in your own quote, is not true. (Only if an 11-12W CFL gave as much light as a 60W GLS would this be accurate.)

III.4. Lifetime

Is it true that compact fluorescent lamps have a much shorter life time than generally claimed?

Untrue. There are indeed low quality compact fluorescent lamps that do not reach their normal life time (6000 h), but most respect the claimed values in average domestic use.

Sources to back up this "most", please. Life rates achieved in optimal lab conditions may be very different from those conditions encountered in homes...

The regulation introduces requirements on lifetime so that national market surveillance can eliminate free-runners.

Who will be doing the checking? I've been informed that quality tests are made in China, not in Europe. Will those that don't pass the tests be banned from import and sales in Europe? Will those who make exaggerated claims be fined?

III.5. Switching frequency

Is it true that compact fluorescent lamps should not be switched on/off frequently because it shortens their lifetime? For example, does it make sense to install them in a toilet which is used for 5 minutes 10 times a day?

It is true that frequent switching reduces the lifetime of some compact fluorescent lamps. This functionality is also addressed by the regulation, requiring that compact fluorescent lamps should reach the claimed life time while being switched on/off once for every hour of operation. Where frequent on/off switching is likely, dedicated compact fluorescent lamps that can endure up to 1 million switching cycles, or other energy saving light sources insensitive to switching can be used (such as improved incandescent bulbs with halogen technology which will also remain available). If this is a feature consumers are concerned about, they should look out for the information on the product packaging, where the manufacturers will be required to display the number of times the lamp can be switched on before failure.

Short translation: Yes, it is true. That CFL life may be shortened by up to 85% by being switched on and off frequently, according to Osram and Chen W, Davis R, and Ji Y. 1998. “An Investigation of the Effect of Operating Cycles on the Life of Compact Fluorescent Lamps” which found that when the length of time the lamps were on was reduced from 3 hours to 1 hour, the lamp lasted for 80 percent of its rated life. When reduced to 15 min and 5 min, the lamp lasted for 30 percent and 15 percent, respectively, of its rated life.

As most of us don't have and many possibly can't afford the new and improved CFLs of higher quality that can withstand frequent switching, this means that in reality CFLs used at home and turned on and off many times a day do not last as long as their rated life. Consumer complaints all over the internet appear to support this assumption.

III.6. Dimmability

Is it true that compact fluorescent lamps cannot be dimmed?

Untrue, there are compact fluorescent lamps on the market that can be dimmed, and there are dimmers that can dim any compact fluorescent lamp. Consumers should carefully read product information concerning dimmability.

Most CFLs still cannot be dimmed. The few dimmable CFLs are a) hard to find; b) cost up to 20€; c) will not create that warm candle-like light like dimming incandescents does, but just make the already poorer quality light even more grey and dull than it already is. The only advantage is that you can use them in existing dimmable luminaires without destroying both lamp and luminaire and causing a fire hazard.

Improved incandescent bulbs with halogen technology will also remain available and provide full dimmability in all circumstances.

Not frosted halogens.

III.7. Starting and warm up times

Do compact fluorescent lamps really take longer to switch on and warm up to full light output than conventional incandescent lamps?

True. In order to guarantee an acceptable level of service with any compact fluorescent lamp, the regulation introduces minimum requirements on switch-on and warm-up times. Switching on a compact fluorescent lamp shall not take more than 2 seconds, and it should reach 60% of its full light output within one minute. However, there are now compact fluorescent lamps on the market that come close to conventional incandescent bulbs for these performance parameters from the point of view of the average consumer. If these are features consumers are concerned about, they should look out for the information on the product packaging, where the manufacturers will be required to display warmup-times.

An awful lot of things consumers need to educate themselves on, or ask well informed staff about, in order to get the right bulb for the right application. Before CFLs, you could just grab a bulb at the supermarket and stick it anywhere without problem. All you needed to know was watts and socket type.

Improved incandescent bulbs with halogen technology will also remain available and provide full light ouput instantly.

Not frosted.

III.8. Shape and light quality

Isn't the shape of compact fluorescent lamps ugly and do they not produce unpleasant light (also in terms of colour rendering, colour temperature and light spectrum)?

Consumers usually find modern quality CFLs perfectly suitable for everyday tasks and aesthetically pleasing.

Eh, no. If this was true, there would be no customer complaints, there would be no objection to this regulation, or indeed a need for it at all, and people would not be hoarding incandescent bulbs in desperation.

Yes, they keep getting better, but that's still not good enough. I keep checking state-of-the-art CFLs and LEDs just to make sure I'm not missing any acceptable replacements, but I have yet to find one that gives the same light as an incandescent or halogen.

There may be some substandard compact fluorescent lamps on the market, but those will be removed through the functionality requirements of the regulation.

Well, some are worse than others, yes, but all standard CFLs, even from leading manufacturers, have suboptimal colour rendering (CRI 82-85) and give a dull and dead light compared to incandescent/halogen.

Improved incandescent bulbs with halogen technology will also remain available and produce exactly the same light quality as conventional incandescent bulbs.

Yes they do, but you've already banned frosted halogens and want to phase out most of the rest too.

Overall, the perception of shape and light quality is quite subjective, however there are parameters that can be measured. On some of these parameters, CFLs are actually doing better than conventional incandescent bulbs and halogens.

Really now? Well, let's see:

Size and shape

Modern CFLs come in a variety of sizes and shapes approaching that of conventional incandescent bulbs. The outer lamp envelope that hides the small twisted lighting tubes has become commonplace, and makes CFLs resemble frosted (non-transparent) conventional incandescent bulbs in appearance.

This is mainly an aestetic advantage to make them look and function more like a traditional bulb. But the outer bulb also makes them less efficient and durable so this isn't what the Commission really wants us to use, it just sounds good to be able to use this example in reply to complaints about fit and look.

Colour rendering

In order to ensure proper colour rendering (ability to reproduce the colours of the objects lit) for CFLs, the regulation introduces a minimum requirement on this product parameter.

Which I assume will be CRI between 80 and 85 (= mediocre) as higher CRI means adding more phosphors, making them more expensive?

Colour temperature

CFLs can be produced with different colour temperatures (warm/cold) depending on consumer needs, whereas conventional incandescent lamps can only provide warm white light.

Here in the North that warm light is much appreciated, but those who still prefer a cooler light should use white LEDs as WLEDs are naturally cool-white without the added phosphor coating to make it almost-warm-white. LEDs also last longer, can often be dimmed and contain no mercury. No reason to use CFLs for this. For professional colour discrimination uses, there is also the halogen Solux lamp.

The regulation requires the indication of colour temperature on the lamp's packaging, so consumers should watch out for this information.

Good. Even if it is another thing the consumers have to educate themselves on. One thing that is not so good is that manufacturers can claim same Correlated Colour Temperature as incandescent light = "same light". But same CCT does not say anything about light quality or actual light colour. A pink-white CFL or green-white LED can have a CCT of 2700K and still not look at all like the golden-white light from an incandescent. Just like CFLs and LEDs can have a CCT of 5000K and still produce a very different colour than the warmish neutral-white of real sunlight.

Light spectrum

If natural daylight is taken as a reference, both conventional incandescent bulbs and compact fluorescent lamps fail to imitate it perfectly, but for different reasons. Natural daylight has a spectrum which is a continuous curve, as strong at the blue and ultraviolet wavelengths as at the yellow and red wavelengths. The light of conventional incandescent bulbs has a continuous spectrum, however it has very little blue component and an extremely high proportion of red and infrared component, therefore it is very yellow and most of it is emitted as heat.

Incandescent light is golden-white and the eye adjusts. As there are no gaps in the spectrum, all colours can be seen. How well depends somewhat on how bright it is, as incandescent light gets whiter at higher wattages.

The spectrum of compact fluorescent lamps differs from natural daylight in that it is not a continuous curve. They emit a high amount of light at certain wavelengths and almost nothing at adjacent wavelengths.

Correct. Which makes colours look rather dull, in comparison with how they look in incandescent light. Do try a direct comparison for yourself. (Yes, you too, commissioners, so you can see with your own eyes what you're phasing out.) And do try with the back of a CD to see how much of the spectrum you can see under various lamps.

However, in terms of the proportion of light emitted within the blue and red wavelength ranges, there are compact fluorescent lamps that are able to reproduce daylight more precisely than conventional incandescent bulbs.

Those special superduperexpensive 'full-spectrum' lamps? I've tried them when working with colours and found them lacking. The best I've tried for true colour rendering was a 150W halogen floodlight and of course real daylight. Both of which have higher CRI and colour rendering capacity than even the best CFLs.

III.10. Is it true that compact fluorescent lamps do not work in cold temperatures?

A standard compact fluorescent lamp will indeed lose a substantial part of its light output in cold temperatures. However, there exist compact fluorescent lamps designed specifically for outdoor use which can withstand cold temperatures without losing performance. Consumers should watch out for this information (required by the regulation for display on the packaging) when purchasing compact fluorescent lamps. Improved incandescent bulbs with halogen technology will also remain available and can operate in any ambient temperature.

Great... more things to look out for...

III.11. Price

Aren't compact fluorescent lamps much more expensive than conventional incandescent bulbs?

Compact fluorescent lamps are actually much cheaper than conventional incandescent bulbs if you consider also lamp life time and costs related to electricity consumption while using the lamps. During the lifetime of one compact fluorescent lamp you will have used 6-10 conventional incandescent lamps. And the compact fluorescent lamp will consume one fourth / one fifth of the electricity consumed by conventional incandescents, another cost saver. A six-year-life energy-saving bulb would save about €36 during its lifetime (60W conventional incandescent versus 15W compact fluorescent lamp). This is based on an assumption of 3 continuous burning hours per day, for an energy cost of 0,136 €/kWh. The initial difference in the lamp price is paid back in 8 months through electricity savings and because of the distribution of the product cost over a longer lifetime (assuming a price of 4,50 € for the compact fluorescent lamp and 60 cents for incandescent bulb).

Hm, but if one has switched the CFL on-and-off too often (due to not being informed of the 15-minute-on recommendation), or used it in a closed or recessed luminaire (due to not having been informed that it may get overheated), or it loses too much output after a while so that it has to be replaced long before it burns out (and not having been informed that one should buy a 20W to compensate for the inevitable gradual loss that all CFLs suffer from), or one got a poor quality CFL at the local gas station that only lasted half the promised life, this rather cuts expected savings too, doesn't it?

EU CFL FAQ 2 - Part I

2009-12-21T18:54:00.005+01:00

After the massive critique following the dedcision to phase out standard incandescent lamps in favor of problem-ridden CFLs, the European Commission some months ago obviously found it necessary to issue another FAQ explaining the details and rationale behind the decision and answering some of the many justified questions posed by us critics.

This one is if possible even longer and more verbose than the first FAQ that I commented on in March, so I'll have to take this one in installments and still leave some parts out as it keeps repeating the same phrases over and over, probably in an attempt to overwhelm the reader into submission and acceptance of the unacceptable.

EU FAQ: I.1. Political motivation for the phase-out

Why is it necessary to phase-out conventional incandescent bulbs?

The European Union remains committed to achieving its objectives in the fight against climate change, including the reduction of primary energy use by 20% compared to business as usual by 2020. Requirements on the energy efficiency of products are a cornerstone of the Community policy aiming to achieve this target. Lighting may represent up to a fifth of a household's electricity consumption. There is a four to five-fold difference between the energy consumption of the least efficient and the most efficient lighting technologies available on the market. This means that upgrading the lamps could reduce a household's total electricity consumption by up to 10-15% and save easily 50€ / year (taking into account the purchasing cost of lamps).

My comment: a. According to statements elsewhere in this FAQ, the Commission acknowledges the fact that there is a max 4-fold difference (and more if you bring poor power factor, light deprecation and other factors also admitted by industry and Commission both). However, the "4-5-fold" argument was used to sell the ban to politicians so I guess they feel a need to stick to it. Or they don't understand the issue well enough themselves, which is quite possible.

b. Lighting is an average of 10% of home electricity in EU, and electricity in turn is only 8.5% of total EU energy use, making lighting 0.75% of total. Of this, only around half the lamp stock is still incandescent, according to the Commission's own consultants. Half of 0.76% of = 0.38%. Of these 0.38% the EC hopes to save 65-75%, which would be 0.25-0.28% of EU total energy consumption if all lamps were replaceable with CFLs and if CFLs really saved that much, which is not the case. This is not very close to the "saving 20% by 2020" goal is it?

Section I.2. contains a description with pictures of what types of lamps will be banned and when. Short summary:

- Last (lowest wattage) standard incandescent banned by 2012.

- Affordable look-alike class C Halogen Energy Savers will be permitted until 2016. (Frosted ones are already banned, though.)

- After 2016 only the super-expensive and hard-to-find Class B Halogen Energy Savers with infrared coating and integrated transformers will be permitted as replacement lamps for standard incandescents.

- Also permitted after 2016 will be more efficient "special cap" halogen lamps, e.g. those mini-bulbs that go in halogen spotlights and the thin double-ended tubes that go in floodlight luminaires. My comment: Good! I was worried there for a while that all of those would disappear from the market with no replacements to fit in existing downlight-, uplight-, spotlight and floodlight luminaires. If the added xenon makes these more efficient than standard halogen lamps, even better.

- CFLs and LEDs will also be permitted after 2016, the latter expected to become viable alternatives in the near future as their brightness, affordability and quality improve.

D. Compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs)

Its main interest lies in its long lifetime and high efficiency, the lamp will use between 65% and 80% less energy (from a third up to the fifth of the energy) for the same light output compared to conventional incandescents.

I already pointed out in my comments to the first FAQ that you cannot claim a lamp "saves 80%" when you in the very same FAQ acknowledge the fact that:

"Today, the same quantity of light (around 750 lumens) can be produced by an incandescent bulb using 60 W, a halogen bulb using 42 W, or a compact fluorescent lamp using 15 W."

This means 75% not 80%.

It sometimes comes with an external envelope which hides the tubes and makes it even more similar to light bulbs (though decreasing its efficiency). The envelope also shields off any unwanted ultaviolet radiations and mitigates the risks connected to mercury emissions because of lamp breakage (especially if it is made of non-breakable silicone). CFLs can live between 6000 and 15000 hours, depending on type and use (as opposed to 1000 hours for an incandescent bulb).
The enveloped bulb type is harder to make long-life due to heat buildup within the outer bulb, loses more output with age and is somewhat less efficient. The Eco-Design group and its consultants already know this, yet always recommend this outer bulb type as the solution to complaints about mercury, UV, harsh light etc., while at the same time basing all savings estimates on the performance of the best, top brand, naked tube CFLs under optimal lab conditions, compared with the poorest performing incandescent!

This strikes me as manipulaitve and outright dishonest. And fooling not only fellow politicians, media and the average Joe, but also themselves, as their projections for how to meet the 2020 goal will turn out to be the fantasy it is when based on skewed calculations rather than on complex reality.

I.3. Ambition level for frosted lamps
Why go for class A and ban even class C/B frosted bulbs from the market?

During the preparatory process leading to the adoption of the Regulation, the analysis showed that among frosted lamps which diffuse light, there was reason to require the highest level of efficiency corresponding to class A of the EU energy label for lamps. 2 This level of efficiency is achievable by compact fluorescent lamps and by light emitting diode lamps. The type of soft light provided by frosted incandescent bulbs and by compact fluorescent lamps does not differ substantially for the average consumer, therefore the more efficient technology can easily replace the other.

But it does differ substantially. See my post about light quality: http://greenerlights.blogspot.com/2009/03/3a-cfl-analysis-light-quality.html There is NO lamp left on the market which can replace the frosted incandescent lamp. CFL and LED lamps do not produce the same light quality, this should be visible to anyone who is not colour blind, besides being measurable by spectral analysis.

Clearly, this measure was taken in order to force that majority who prefer non-glaring frosted lamps to buy CFLs instead, by removing all frosted alternatives, including frosted Halogen Energy Savers!

For those who really cannot tolerate the substandard light quality of CFLs and LEDs, I strongly urge the Commission to reconsider this hasty decision and permit frosted Halogen Energy Savers. There is no reason whatsoever to ban those. People should have a free choice which energy saver they prefer to use.

The frosted halogen lamp is excellent for reading, for example, while clear lamps cause glare and disturbing patterns on the page. Removing all frosted incandescent and halogen lamps from the market creates a gap that no other lamp can fill, leaving elderly and vision impaired literally in the dark.

However, sometimes consumers look for the particular light quality/aesthetics delivered by transparent lamps, which provide a bright point-like light, useful e.g. in crystal chandeliers. For these applications, there is a need to keep alternatives to compact fluorescent lamps, which cannot deliver the same type of light. This means leaving less efficient, but still enhanced incandescent bulbs (of the halogen type) on the market, at least as long as there is no more efficient technology that can replace them.

Glad that the Commission recognises this at least.

Such lamps also provide alternatives for the few situations where the use of compact fluorescent lamps is not recommended due to practical reasons (such as in locations where the light is switched on rarely and for a short time only).

Non-glaring frosted Halogen Energy Savers would have been a nice option to have. Here the Commission has removed a whole product group without there being a useful alternative for elderly, vision impaired and others who need frosted incandescent light in order to see well without being blinded.
Just as I said above.

I.4. Ambition level for clear lamps

Why is the minimum efficiency requirement not raised to class A for clear (transparent) lamps too?
The requirement on clear lamps is only raised to class C until 2016 (and to class B beyond 2016), so that other efficient technologies (such as improved incandescent bulbs with halogen technology) can remain on the market. This is necessary because current-day compact fluorescent lamps and light emitting diodes cannot provide the same type of light as the conventional incandescent lamps that are being phased out.
However improved incandescent bulbs with halogen technology do, and consumers who are keen on conventional incandescent light quality for aesthetics or health reasons should have access to it.

Yes, they should. So bring back the frosted halogens!

I.5. Proportionality of the phase-out - why not voluntary approach or other measures (taxation, ETS)

Is it not disproportionate that the European Commission bans conventional incandescent bulbs from the market? Would it not be better to leave the choice to citizens or to make use of other measures to achieve the switch (such as voluntary restrictions as in the UK, information to the public or taxation)? Isn't the EU's Emissions Trading System (ETS) anyway supposed to take care of the emissions related to electricity generation? Does ETS not affect consumer choices already indirectly, through price mechanisms?

The European Commission did not decide on its own to phase out conventional incandescent bulbs, it is done in agreement with the European Parliament and with the Council of Member States.

So, after singlehandedly pushing this ban with extreme fervour, hiring consultants who appear to hate incandescent light with a passion and are only too happy to produce a questionable preparatory study that supports a ban, and issuing a totally misleading Technical Briefing that gave voting politicians the faulty impression that this measure will save 10-15% of the 20% goal rather than 0.25%, you now want the Parliament and Council to share the blame?!

Introducing minimum efficiency requirements for a product group such as light bulbs (rather than relying on a voluntary approach) is not disproportionate in this case. The market has clearly failed to move towards the alternatives to conventional incandescent bulbs, even though they cost much less to the consumers over their entire life cycle.

Because the main product pushed is inferior compared with incandescent lamps. It is truly as simple as that. People are not stupid. If it was a great product it would sell itself! Forcing a lower-quality product on people against their will is truly bizarre! Especially when lighting is so vital both for mood and ergonomics, it's not like regulating aquarium pumps or water beds which most can surely do without.

The European Union's Emissions Trading System (ETS) directly affects the emissions of electricity generation, however there is cost-effective saving potential also in the reduction of electricity use of households, which cannot be directly achieved through ETS. Although the indirect impact of the ETS could translate into an increase in electricity prices and therefore in the use-phase costs of an incandescent bulb, such an increase would have to be multi-fold in order to become sufficiently visible for convincing in the short term every single consumer to buy a compact fluorescent lamp instead.

But the whole point is that you shouldn't convince every single consumer to buy a CFL instead, since it is an inferior quality product, hated by many and containing mercury on top of it. Instead, you could convince enough people to turn down indoor heat or cooling one degree and save much more. You could reward utilities for handing out free dimmers, sensors and timers. Or you could regulate and tax junk food, which uses astronomical amounts of electricity in production, distribution and storage, and causes costly and disabling health problems on top of it.

Still the main point is that efficient lighting as provided for in the regulation is a way to save energy, to limit CO 2 emissions and to help consumers save money without loss of functionality.

As Peter Thornes keeps pointing out, it is not up to the Commission to save people money. This is just the usual sales propaganda from Market Transformation Programs rehashed to make it sound like a better idea than it is. For comparison, just think of the amount of money the average household would save if there was no junk food to buy in the shop! Or if alcohol and tobacco were banned. But the EC doesn't really care about people's private economy, does it?

And I still don't see an explanation why a tax or VAT won't work.

I.6. Alleged intrusion of Brussels into citizens' private lives

How come the bureaucrats of the European Commission are suddenly taking a decision that affects so much the life of every European citizen?

By adopting a regulation aiming to phase out the less energy efficient lamps, the Commission implemented the specific mandate from the European Parliament and the Council of Member States as originally laid down in the Ecodesign Directive (2005/32/EC, see point II.3 of this FAQ). In its Article 16, the Directive specifically requested the Commission to introduce implementing measures on lighting in the domestic sector through this procedure.

The importance of this measure was underlined by the Spring European Council of 2007, which invited the Commission to "rapidly submit proposals to enable increased energy efficiency requirements (…) on conventional incandescent lamps and other forms of lighting in private households by 2009" and by the European Parliament in its resolution of 31 January 2008 on the Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, where the European Parliament stressed " the importance of the Commission's keeping to the proposed timetable for the withdrawal of the most inefficient light bulbs from the market". Again, in October 2008, the Council of Energy Ministers invited the Commission to " submit in 2008 a draft Regulation that will launch a gradual process of phasing out until conventional incandescent lamps and all the worst-performing lights are banned."

In parallel to these mandates, the Commission's services developed a draft regulation on non-directional household lamps. The procedure started already in December 2006 through a preparatory study. After a thorough technical-environmental-economic analysis of the available household lamps and their improvement potential, which was carried out openly with the involvement of stakeholders, a working document based on these recommendations was discussed with Member States and stakeholders (including a wide range of NGOs and industry) in the Ecodesign Consultation Forum in March 2008.

Building on the opinions expressed in the Forum, and on a parallel impact assessment, the Commission's services prepared the text of the draft regulation, which was fully endorsed in the Regulatory Committee on 8 December 2008, without opposition from any of the Member States.
The Environment Committee of the European Parliament discussed the measure on 17 February 2009 and decided not to object to it. Finally, the European Commission adopted the Regulation on 18 March 2009.

This exhaustive preparatory process has ensured that the interests of European citizens were well represented during the development of the regulation.

Hardly. Few of those directly affected were even told of this impending decision before it was too late, and not exactly informed on how to protest. And the discussion/vote was rushed through several weeks before the three month objection time was up.

Peter Thornes describes the whole charade from beginning to end here: http://www.ceolas.net./#li1ax

I.8. The quantity of savings compared to other sectors and countries

How do the estimated savings compare to the total electricity consumption the EU? Are they not insignificant, considering that household lighting itself is only a small share of the total consumption? Is it not superfluous to adopt measures that bring so little improvement compared to the whole? Other sectors and other countries could make more important savings. Why bother with light bulbs?

When comparing the estimated saving potential of the regulation (39 billion kilowatthours per year by 2020) to the electricity consumption of the EU, it may seem insignificant (1,4 % of the total final electricity consumption of the 27 Member States in 2006, which was 2826 billion kilowatthours).

Let's see how the "1,4%" was arrived at:

Some figures for EU-27 in 2006:

Final energy consumption (all fuels, all sectors): 1177 Mtoe (megatons of oil equivalent)

Final electricity consumption (all sectors): 2826 billion kWh or 243 Mtoe

Final energy consumption of households (all fuels): 304.9 Mtoe

Final electricity consumption of households: 807 billion kWh or 69.4 Mtoe

Electricity consumption of household lighting: 105.89 billion kWh or 9.1 Mtoe = 13% of household electricity consumption, 3% of total household energy consumption, 1.4 % of total electricity consumption (all sectors)

Well, I'm very glad to find a previously unseen effort to separate sectors and not confuse electricity and total energy consumption (could it perhaps be inspired by my energy statistics posts)? Seems we arrived at fairly similar figures anyhow (= lighting around 3% of household energy use). Except on that last one. Unless my calculator is playing tricks on me, I get 0.77%, not 1.4%.

However, the total electricity consumption of the EU includes the consumption of all sectors, namely industry, transport, agriculture etc., not just households. It is clear that in order to fight climate change effectively, all sectors need to contribute. The regulation on non-directional household lamps affects lamp types that are primarily used in households (although to some extent also in non-household applications such as restaurants, hotels, shops etc.). Therefore it is fair to compare the estimated savings to the electricity consumption of the household sector in the EU, which was 807 billion kWh in 2006, of which 5% will be saved.

Here we go again using the old electricity confusion stunt to muddle the waters and make savings sound more than they truly are. 5% = 1.14% of total household energy consumption. That is, if the phase-out will truly save this much (which is won't, see below).

The estimates above are based on the assumption that households will be using a mixture of improved incandescent bulbs with halogen technology and compact fluorescent lamps. However, switching to the exclusive use of compact fluorescent lamps and LEDs makes economic sense for households, who would save much more energy and money.

We have heard this argument a million times. It still does not address the quality issues with CFLs and LEDs. If the lamps had good enough light quality and fit everywhere, people would buy them without force, especially now that price is going down and relative quality (compared to earlier models) up. No one wants to waste energy. But some of us do care about being able to see well and have a warm relaxing lighting environment in our own homes and do not find even the best CFLs or LEDs fulfilling those requirements.

If all households switched to the exclusive use of compact fluorescent lamps and LEDs, at the EU level we would be saving 86 billion kilowatthours by 2020, which is 11% of the electricity consumption of households.

If lighting is estimated (with much encertainty) at under 13% of household electricity (I assume this is your source for that number: Residential Lighting Consumption and Saving Potential in the Enlarged EU) and CFLs save (optimistically) 66-75% of those almost 13%, how does that make 11%? 66-77% of 13 is 8.58-9.75%.

But that would be assuming a) that the 13% of of electricity use is an accurate estimation; b) that those lamps are all incandescent (which they are not, see below); c) that all CFLs work as well as claimed (consumer tests show many don't, or else we wouldn't need new quality labels); d) that they don't have poor power factor (which most standard CFLs do), e) that there was no heat replacement effect in cooler regions (which there is, according to studies), f) that people wanted to buy them despite the quality issues (many don't or they wouldn't be hoarding incandescents), and g) that it was even possible to replace all lamps with LEDs or CFLs (which is not the case, even according to your own consultants):

VITO: "...some customers have a few light points left where they prefer to keep the GLS due to barriers for CFLi as explained in chapter 3 (e.g. requirements to color rendering, sparkling effect etc.) or because of the lamp has little usage such as in cellars, staircases or storage rooms and where full lighting is also needed immediately."

Therefore the fantasy of replacing all home lamps with CFLs or LEDs remains a fantasy - the If-game. Let's stick to reality, please.

The electricity consumption of household lighting is a minor part (3%) of the total energy consumption of a household (heating and water heating included).

Now we're getting back to the proper perspective!

However, it should also be underlined that the regulation on non-directional household lamps is just one of a series of 30 or more Commission regulations (already adopted or being prepared for adoption in the near future) concerning the energy efficiency of different product groups such as televisions, heating boilers, water heaters, electric motors etc. These regulations all contribute to a combined impact that will make the real difference in terms of our objectives to reduce energy use and combat climate change.

But isn't it true that light bulb regulation was sold to voting politicians as The Big Thing - that One Green Measure that was going to get us massively closer to the 2020 goal? Could it have been my pointing out what a drop in the energy ocean home lighting actually is in my energy statistics post, that has prompted this unconvincing retort?

And it's not exactly a good defense of the first unpopular regulation, to state that there will be more unpopular regulations added to get an effect. I assume Heat Replacement Effect are not calculated for the other products either?

It also puzzles some of us how EU on the one hand takes the liberty of actually banning a non-harmful product, totally in opposition with the free market guideline, and strongly promoting a competing product which may harm both health and the environment and is already doing much damage to both in China*, while at the same time objecting to member state governments recommending people to buy locally produced food in order to minimise emissions from transport.** Food transport is a huge polluter and energy consumer and the less of it the better for the planet, no?

* "'Green' lightbulbs poison workers"
** "Swedish food guidelines meet protests from the EU" (unfortunately, this article is now removed).

I.9. Market share of different bulb types

How many conventional incandescent bulbs are in use at present in the EU, compared to energy saving bulbs?

In 2006, there were 5.1 billion lamps installed in EU households. Of these, 4.2 billion lamps were non-directional lamps, the remaining 0.9 billion reflector lamps.

Having lamps installed is not the same thing as having lamps in use. If calculations on lighting part of household energy use are based on number of lamps installed, this could make lighting appear to use a much larger part of home electricity than is actually the case. This also omits counting dimmers and sensors and how many houshold's have learned to turn the lights off when leaving the room in order to save electricity. The EU lighting consumption study appears to confirm this:

EU lighting study: "It is not easy to compile accurate and comprehensive data on the total end-use consumption of individual equipment and appliances, as these are not usually separately metered."

"The first important point is that lighting data is very scarce, as is most of the different electricity enduse data for the residential sector. While it is easier to calculate the national consumption of large appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines is (equipment stock, user habit, and other influencing factors are well known), with regard to lighting data about the power installed, the number of lamps, the burning hours is often missing."

And without the burning hours, you're left guessing - and easily overestimating.

EU FAQ: The total stock of lamps affected by this regulation (all sectors including household, tertiary etc.) was 3.9 billion lamps in 2007. 1 billion lamps (25% of the total) were compact fluorescent lamps, and 2.1 billion were incandescent bulbs.

Source: Preparatory Study for Eco-design Requirements of EuPs – Domestic lighting, Chapter 2 available at www.eup4light.net

Always trying to make it sound as much as possible while still making things less than clear. This is what the study actually says:

VITO: Based on surveys of 500 consumers in 11 countries, the EU-27 average share per household 2007 was estimated at:
• 54% of the lamps incandescent (and decreaseing)
• 18% of the lamps low-voltage halogen (and increasing)
• 5% of the lamps mains-voltage halogen (and increaseing)
• 8% of the lamps linear flourescent
• 15% of the lamps CFL with integrated ballasts

It also indicates that incandescent lamps were expected to keep decreasing dramatically, even in the "business-as-usual" scenario (= without a ban)!!

Now, 54% 2007 means probably less than 50% today. That means 50% of those alleged but uncertain almost 13% = 6.5%. And then 66-75% of those = 4.29-4.87% of electricity, assuming a) - g) above, which again is contrary to known and provable facts, so more likely around 50%, generously speaking. Now we are down to 3.25% of household electricity consumption. Which can easily be saved by other means.

I.11. Role of the lamp industry

Did the Commission take this decision under the influence and in the interest of lamp companies?

The European Commission did not decide on its own to phase out conventional incandescent bulbs, it is done in agreement with the European Parliament and with the Council of Member States. Regulation 244/2009 was developed by the Commission on a mandate from the Ecodesign Directive (2005/32/EC) of the European Parliament and of the Council of Ministers of the Member States. The request to phase out conventional incandescent bulbs was made by the European Council in 2007 and further reinforced by the European Parliament and by the Council of Energy Ministers in 2008. The Regulation itself was prepared in an open process lasting two years with the formal involvement of stakeholders such as consumer and environmental NGOs. European industry was also consulted, they claimed initially that the provisions of the planned measure would be much too ambitious in terms of timing and requirements. However, the Commission and the Member States decided to maintain the level of ambition, with the support of the other stakeholders. In the framework of their right of scrutiny, both the Council of Ministers and the Parliament decided not to object to the draft Regulation before it was adopted by the Commission in March 2009.

That manufacturers needed longer to adjust their production once the goal was within reach does not mean that the idea of getting rid of their most unprofitable but popular lamp once and for all, didn't originate within the industry. The global anti-lightbulb campaign, via Market Transformation Programmes, has been one of the most well-coordinated, persistent and far-reaching propaganda acts in history.

That the Commission and most EMPs have swalloed all the usual PR lines (which all you need is a manufacturer catalogue and a calculator too see are exaggerated, and which I believe was also communicated by PLDA before the EMP debate and final vote) does not inspire trust in our leader's judgement.

Let me just emphasise that I am not against energy saving and making more efficient products. But it is not acceptable to be forced to use a lower quality product for something as important as lighting.

The Commission now keeps repeating that Halogen Energy Savers and LEDs are also available, but these products are not easy to find and were not even included in the preparatory study; all calculations were based on the naked tube CFL. This is clearly the lamp which the Commission and industry both hope we will all use in most of our lamps, despite its looong list of problems, including the mercury content. I find this more than a little strange.

Various short stories

2009-12-20T03:50:00.002+01:00

CFL-lit restaurants - ack!

This week I was invited to a Christmas dinner at fine country restaurant. Lovely old building, great company, delicious food, but the lighting put a bit of a damper on the otherwise enjoyable event. It consisted of CFL downlights only, exept for a few halogen wallwashers to illuminate the beautiful brick walls. The effect was dim and gloomy as the dimmed CFL light was too weak to reach the tables and floors - unlike halogen light which does this very effectively - and made the room look dull and grey instead of sparkling and lively. If it hadn't been for the halogen wall-washers, it would have been even more gloomy. Dimming the CFLs also changed their colour to dim blue and dim rose, and made some of them flicker perceptibly!

New LED traffic lights can't melt snow

Just as some of us have been warning about. How hard can it be to just use the right lamp in the right place? Incandescent (halogen) lamps for regions with cold and snowy winters, LEDs for warmer regions.

Energy Efficiency: How NOT To Do It

Utilities billing their customers for 'free' CFLs, and with a profit margin on top of it, much to the surprise and dismay of their customers when they found out. LOL! Do people think their utilities are Santa Claus or Mother Teresa? As I pointed out in my earlier post Who pays for 'free' handouts? if you get something for free, you usually end up paying for it one way or another.

New Lamps for Old – Light Changing and Burglary

CFL light exchange programs may also attract thieves and scammers seeing an opportunity to get into your home, as well as companies handing out free low-quality CFLs in order to lure you into buying something else. Beware!

Compact Fluorescent Lamps Could Nearly Halve Global Lighting Demand for Electricity

"Aggressively replacing the world's incandescent lightbulbs with compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) could reduce lighting energy demand by nearly 40 percent and cut greenhouse gas emissions from day one, according to the latest Vital Signs Update released by the Worldwatch Institute."

Obviously, World Watch Institute haven't done their math right. As I clarified in the latter half of my Global Ban Craze post, incandescent lamps are used mainly in the Residential sector, which in turn uses only 15% of world energy (whereas the Industrial and Commercial sectors use 62.5%, the majority of which is already FL or HID). Of those 15% only a small part is used for lighting, and only some of the lamps in the Residential sector are still incandescent.

Stepping out, stepping lively

980 incandescent lamps to light up a slipper?! Ouch! What will happen to Las Vegas when incandescent lamps are phased out? The almost obscene overflow of high quality dazzling light is a huge part of Vegas' special appeal, I wonder how casinos and hotels will manage without it? (Not that I'd be overly sorry if casino owners get one tool less to manipulate gullible people's senses with, but I'm sure they will be.)

Ingo Maurer's Euro Condom

For those EU residents who miss the now banned frosted incandescent bulb and forgot to stock up.

Osram LCA study

2009-12-09T21:30:00.013+01:00

The recently released OSRAM Life Cycle Assessment study (executive summary) appears to be one of the most comprehensive studies so far. However, it still isn't done properly.

The 3 base-cases which the whole study hinges upon have all the usual flaws:

"For comparability reasons in the study, it was assumed that all three lamps would have a light output between 345 to 420 lm during their whole lifetime, and then burn out."

a) Very low lumen lamps were chosen in this study most likely because Osram still can't make an LED produce more light than a the equivalent of a 25W incandescent, which is good for absolutely nothing. A 25W incandescent can be used for mood lighting, an 8W LED can't be used for anything but a scary night light.

b) A 40W standard incandescent bulb gives 410 lumen (xenon-filled bulbs an extra 10%) whereas a typical high quality 7-8W CFL gives around 350 lumen and a 7-8W LED around the same, or less.

c) And then CFLs and LEDs lose output with age - more the longer they last. For example, in a Swedish consumer test (Råd & Rön 3/2008) the 7W Osram Superstar classic A CFLs had lost 27% of their initial output after 6000 hours.

"An extra analysis was done that took the gradual reduction of brightness into account. The difference was too small to impact results, though."

Ah, but that's only because very low lumen lamps were chosen for the study. The higher output lamps you compare, the more CFLs and LEDs tend to lose with age. And as they were already weaker than an equivalent 40W to begin with, this adds to the difference. A 27% decrease is not negligible!

Thus, it is not a correct comparison and all following numbers and conclusions in the study equally faulty.

"To ensure comparability of the three lamp types a lifetime of 25,000 hours was taken a reference parameter which was evened out by the number of lamps used. This way, the lifetime of 25 incandescent bulbs (25,000 hours) equals the lifetime of 2.5 compact fluorescent lamps, which equals the lifetime of one Parathom LED lamp."

a) Halogen Energy Savers, which last 2000-3000 hours and use 25-45% less energy, were not included!

b) Maybe some of Osram's long-life CFL models last 10 000 hours if just left burning, but as it is explicitly stated that "turn-on-and-off cycles were excluded from the study" and an Osram representative confirmed the earlier study that showed frequent switching may shorten life with up to 85%...

c) We only have Osram's word for their LED lasting 25 000 hours...

"..a correlated color temperature between 2700 - 3000 K (warm white), a colour rendering index of ≥ 80 and a Classic A shape with E27 socket. All lamps provide comparable luminous flux and all are warm white lamps but the fact of a cold perception of the light from different emission spectra of the lamp types is not considered."

In other words: besides not being equal in output, these 3 lamp base-cases are not comparable quality-wise, or even appearance-wise, only in bulb-shape & socket.

a) CRI ≥ 80 = mediocre colour rendering capacity in CFL and LED, to be compared with CRI 99-100 for incandescent and halogen.

b) As Osram does not state exactly which model CFL and LED they have used, it's hard to know what that specific lamp looks like. The ones I've seen so far (see my energy savers review) have not been comparable to incandescent light colour, radiance and quality, even if CFLs have improved markedly over the last decade and Osram makes some of the most incandescent-like.

"The production of the GLS and CFL takes place in Europe. For the Parathom LED lamp, production of the Golden Dragon LEDs is located in Germany (frontend) and Malaysia (backend) and the production of the LED lamp in China. The location of the use phase, end of life, and any other processes was Europe."

This may be true of Osram CFLs, but most CFLs on the market are either low-budget lamps imported from China or manufacturers have their factories there. Sylvania says their ballasts are manufacturered in different places and sent to be assembled into CFLs in another, sometimes another country.

"The heating benefit of a GLS always leads to a discussion. This chapter estimates the actual benefit of heating losses during usage. By assuming 250 heating days, 1000 hours of GLS burning time per year, 75% GLS lighting during heating days, and heating with natural gas, it would lead to a reduction of 17 kg CO2 over 25.000 hours. This saved amount is negligible in comparison to the whole life cycle, and there is no reason to hold on that argument. Furthermore, the heating benefit could also serve as a disadvantage when cooling is necessary."

At least they mention the heat replacement effect, even if they consider it "negligible" - except when it needs to be air-conditioned away, then it suddenly counts (as always).

Poor power factor is not even mentioned.

With correction for the above factors, the outcome would be less advantageous for the LED and CFL.

Yes, they may still save something when compared with the poorest performing incandescents - a matter of quantity vs quality - but not nearly as much as claimed in this biased study, and even less when compared to the best halogen energy savers.

What could be expected? Osram is a lamp manufacturer well known to want to sell more CFLs and LEDs and get rid of the unprofitable incandescent lamps altogether.

Sorry Osram, it was an admirable effort, but do try to get your basic numbers right the next time and the results may be more belieavble, even if not as spectacular.

P.S. When do we get to see the whole study and not just the summary?

Holiday Lights

2009-12-09T21:10:00.004+01:00

Everything seems to be about holiday lights now, with new LED light strings using a fraction of the usual energy, with almost no fire risk if installed correctly.

Do I recommend them? Yes and no. Depends on colour.

Coloured - yes! No reason whatsoever not to switch to LED.

Cool-white - no. For the holidays you want to create a warm fuzzy feel, right? Using chilly ice-blue LEDs is not the way to do it. *brrrr*

Warm-white - maybe. It depends on how keen you are on getting an exact incandescent replacement. If you are, there aren't any. What is sold as "warm-white" tends to be either pink-white, yellow-white or greenish-yellow. How much they're off from the brilliant golden-white of incandescent lights varies between models and brands. Some are close enough to be acceptable. Make sure to look and compare before you buy.

Maybe you don't care as long as there is light? Then by all means, do buy them! Being left on perhaps all night and even all day for a whole month or two, it can be well worth the investment. Just get ones that look good enough for your standards.

Here are some tips from Gadget Guy on how to calculate savings: What Holiday Lights Are Best?

Car Headlights

2009-12-03T01:27:00.013+01:00

Using LED lamps as stop- and signal lights on cars seems like a great idea - giving more colour than light, while using practically no energy, is what diodes do best!

But replacing the standard warm-white top quality halogen light commonly used for headlights is not such a great idea.

Since their introduction in early 1990's, more and more cars are now being equipped with mini discharge Xenon arc headlight lamps. They're about twice as bright as halogen headlights or more, and are said to improve visibility for the driver. But what few seem to have considered is how irritating they can be for meeting traffic:

- They're blueish (around 4100K), which creates more confusion and distraction in an otherwise even traffic stream. Lights from meeting cars are not supposed to attract your attention by sticking out. And blue light is not good for the eyes.

- An especially irritating feature is that they flicker and quickly shift shade from blue-white to purple-white and back as the car drives past, instead of giving a calm, even light like halogen does. This can be very distracting, especially when you meet one at a turn.

- They're very bright and glaring. That's not good for the eyes either. Or for road safety. Being blinded and distracted in crucial traffic situations is not exactly helpful.

The Swedish Road Administration say they keep getting complaints from other drivers but can’t do anything about it since these lamps tend to get approved by EU as car manufacturers apply. A condition for this approval is that they must be precisely adjusted so as to avoid glare for others, but this is obviously not always done, or is easily maladjusted again depending on packing weight etc.

- Getting a xenon-lit car driving behind can be even worse than briefly meeting one, especially if it's a van or SUV where the headlights come up higher. Having the inside of one's car lit up like a stadium does not make for safe driving. And this goes for trucks, vans and SUVs equipped with standard halogen lights as well.

If you're considering switching to xenon, please be mindful of other drivers and consider staying with traditional halogen if possible. If you the car is already equipped with xenon, please make sure lights are well adjusted at all times.

Also beware of Faux Xenon, e.g. Osram's Cool Blue - "the designer lamp" - a product that shouldn't exist. Putting a blue filter on a standard halogen bulb is about the stupidest thing you can do. These should definitely be banned, as they are both energy inefficient and dangerous!

Nowadays headlights in general are also much brighter than they used to be - manufacturers constantly boast about how much more light their product will give you:

* Osram Silverstar "Thanks to their special technology SILVERSTAR lamps illuminate the road with an up to 50% brighter light in the crucial zone 50 to 75 m in front of the vehicle than a standard lamp"

...and in the crucial vision zone of meeting traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists.

* Philips X-treme Power "Philips X-treme Power bulbs deliver up to an astounding 80% more light than standard halogens"

...right into the unsuspecting eye of everyone but the driver.

If the European Commission ever wanted to do anything truly useful, why not ban xenon lights as a safety hazard, faux xenon as a waste and hazard both, and set firm limits to how bright headlights can be?

Scott Rodgers - The Master Spammer

2009-12-03T00:26:00.009+01:00

There is this joker named Scott Rodgers flooding the net with the most ignorant anti-lightbulb articles I've ever seen. Don't know how many times I've missed checking the author and wasted time posting some correcting facts, without any comments ever showing up at all, despite all the various fake blogs always appearing to be open to comment.

He has literally plastered the web with hundreds of articles at every conceivable outlet, inlcuding anti-lingbulb propaganda in an NLP blog and a Hoodia diet blog! Here is just a handful:

Is Florescent Light A Better Alternative To Incandescent Lights ?
Why The Incandescent Light Bulb Were Replaced With Other Bulbs?
Incandescent Light Bulb-The Less Efficient Bulb
Advantages Of Florescent Lights Over Incandescent Lights
Incandescent Light Bulbs-A Threat To Our Eco System

The funny thing is that Mr Rodgers always ends his often amateurish and poorly written articles bragging about his "fantastic" writing skills in comical superlatives, and how he has "generated business opportunities" for electricians in constantly new areas. Here are just two examples:

"Scott Rodgers is a highly knowledgeable writer on electrician works. His stupendous exposure on lighting works has helped a lot many Atlanta Electricians (Need one? click here!) and Belleair Beach Electricians (Need one? click here!) to get a strong grip on their business."

"Scott Rodgers is a writer with ample experience in electrcians work all over the country. His stupendous guidance has generated business opportunities for a lot many Plymouth Electricians (Need one? click here!) and Beavercreek Electricians (Need one? click here!) to get a strong grip on their business."

"Stupendous"? LOL! "A lot many"? I thought it was either "a lot" or "many". Well, you can still be knowledgable about lamps and electric work without fantastic language skills, but Mr Rodgers seems to be neither:

"Scientists, after a lot of research, came out with one alternative to these traditional light bulbs and that is compact fluorescent light bulbs(CFL). They are much more efficient and safe than the incandescent bulbs but unfortunately, the traditional bulbs are being widely used despite the fact that everyone is aware of its bad effects."

This is truly a stunning reversal of facts! There is nothing unsafe about incandescent lamps, it is CFLs that contain mercury and may be harmful to both health and environment!

"In addition to that the light produced is too dim. So, these reasons should be sufficient for anyone to limit their usage and help protect the environment as finally we would be the sufferers."

Incandescent light is not too dim, it is CFL and LED light that is usually too dim. Especially if you use the recommended 11-14W CFL to replace a 60W incandescent, or a 6W LED to replace a 25W incandescent, you will not get nearly as much light as you had, and it will keep getting even dimmer with age.

"Incandescent light bulbs waste a large part of the energy consumed. Only 5% of the energy consumed is converted into light and the rest is wasted."

This is correct, but the heat is wasted only outdoors and in warm climate zones and seasons. In cooler countries the heat adds to indoor heating in a pleasant way and keeps heating bills down.

"Unlike these, A CFL can save up to 80% of energy as it is capable of producing a larger quantity of light."

The EU Commission recently confirmed that this statement is an exaggeration (something anyone can check for themselves by comparing lumen values in manufacturer catalogues.) Nominal values (tested in optimal lab conditions) show 75% at best, less for covered models and poor quality lamps, and in reality often around 50% if you count poor power factor and the gradual light loss.

"Moreover, their life span is more than 8-10 times longer than any ordinary bulb."

That depends on model, brand and individual bulb. Some models are designed to last 4 500 hours, some up to 15 000, though at a larger reduction in output. Consumer tests have found many to not last as long as claimed. Also, using them in closed or recessed luminaires can make them overheat and go out prematurely, and switching them on and off often may reduce life with up to 85%! (See March archives on this blog for referenced details.)

"Moreover, compact fluorescent light bulbs can illuminate your home in a much livelier way, and yet be really low on power cost. Using a CFL lamp makes the ambiance much more radiant in its own unique way, with the light being much more on the whiter side. It can work wonders as accent lighting, with paintings and colored features coming out in their correct contrasts."

Again, the truth is the exact opposite (except that about the whiter light - some CFLs have a higher correlated colour temperature = colder light colour). Mr Rodgers has obviously never read a manufacturer catalogue where it is clearly stated that colour rendering index is only 82-85, vs 99-100 for incandescent (incl halogen) light.

And Mr Rodgers must not have tried his advice out for himself or he would have noticed how everything looks dead, dull and gloomy in fluorescent and LED light, and how colours come alive and sparkle only in the golden-white, brilliant light from incandescent and halogen lamps.

As Mr Rodgers is not above slagging CFLs in PR articles about LEDs, it seems obvious that this is just an opportunist looking for business by way of article-spamming en masse.

Don't buy it!

Global Ban Craze

2009-11-25T21:06:00.013+01:00

Seems more and more countries are being persuaded to phase out incandescent lamps:

Cuba: banned incandescent bulbs 2005.
Brazil: initiated phase-out 2005.
Venezuela: initiated phase-out 2005.
Argentina: bulbs will be banned by 2011.

European Union: gradual phase-out between Sept. 2009 and September 2012.
Italy (EU member): speeded up ban by 2011.
United Kingdom (EU member): speeded up ban by 2011.
Switzerland: 2009.
Finland: is considering a ban by 2011.

Russia: phase-out between 2011-2014, starting with the 100W like in EU.
Tajikistan: has banned import & production 2009.

Canada: plans ban in 2012.
U.S.A.: gradual phase-out between 2012 and 2014 (a few of the most efficient Halogen Energy Saves may still pass the efficiency requirements).

Australia: started ban 1 November 2009. (Lamps must be over 15 lm/W which means some Halogen Energy Savers still qualify.)
New Zeeland: 2007 ban plan got scrapped by the new government 2008.

Philippines: 2010.

*********************

But not even this is enough to satisfy the vested interests and duped do-gooders:

Global Phase-Out of Old Bulbs Announced by UN, GEF, and Industry

Ever since I read this press release two months ago, I've been too stunned for words. But now I want to make a few comments:

The close to $20 million initiative, the Global Market Transformation for Efficient Lighting Platform that will be implemented in collaboration with the private sector companies OSRAM and Philips, is aimed at reducing the bills of electricity consumers in developing economies while delivering cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases.

I would guess it is more aimed at increasing profits for OSRAM and Philips and funding for involved organisations.

It is also aimed at replacing fuel-based lighting systems, such as kerosene, that is linked with health-hazardous indoor air pollution.

This is good! Or would be, if the plan was to hand out free solar-powered LEDs rather than free CFLs, which are health-hazardous if dropped or not recycled properly. But LEDs are still too dim, too imperfect and too expensive to give away for free, and as manufacturers still meet (often justified) consumer resistence to their CFLs due to lingering quality problems, it seems the plan is now to dump them on unsuspecting developing countries who can't afford to be choosers.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-secretary General and UNEP Executive Director: “This new project aims to accelerate growing national initiatives to replace old bulbs into a global one by overcoming market barriers in developing economies and by setting international energy and performance standards in order to build consumer confidence."

I guess manufacturers are in a hurry to find an alternative outlet for their unwanted CFLs before LEDs become good and affordable enough to take over thir part of the market. So now they need the help of the UN to "accelerate the plan" and "overcome market barriers" (such as high price for decent quality and dimmable lamps, mediocre light quality, gradual light loss, temperature sensitivity, varying durability, mercury content & recycling difficulties).

Globally, 70% of total lighting market sales are still made up of inefficient incandescent lamps.

But, um, sales do not necessarily reflect use:

- Since incandescent bulbs have a much shorter life than fluorescent and High Intensity Discharge lamps, there will be more incandescent lamps sold, while old tubes and HID lamps keep burning year after year.

- At home, a family may have numerous light points installed but only use a few every day, for just a few minutes or hours at a time.

A market shift, from incandescent lamps to energy-efficient alternatives, would cut the world’s electricity demand for lighting by an estimated 18%.

But this is what the notes at the bottom of the press release says:

Some additional facts and figures

• The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that in 2007 total electricity consumption for lighting was 2,650 TWh. This represents almost 19% of global electricity use.

How is it possible to save 18 out of 19% when only a small fraction of those alleged 19% is incandescent in the first place?

"Eight per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions are linked with lighting."

If that is true it does not come from incandescent lighting.

Estimates clearly include all sectors, and the majority of lights in the Commercial sector, and probably nearly all in the Industrial sector, are already fluorescent or HID. (Transportation sector is a separate issue altogether.)

Left is the Residential sector, which accounted for only about 15% of world delivered energy consumption (note: all types of energy, not just electricity) in 2006 (according to EIA International Energy Outlook 2009).

In EU and USA, lighting is estimated at a mean of around 9-10% of household electricity = 2-3% of total household energy consumption (source: EuroStat and EIA). Of the lamps in the residential sector, most but not all are incandescent, and of those that are, only some are suitable for replacement.

Statistics for the rest of the world are often incomplete, conflicting, non-existent or hard to come by, but I doubt it is much more than in EU and USA.

OSRAM representative Martin Goetzeler, CEO: "The lever is enormous. Over 1/3 of the electricity used worldwide for lighting today could be saved. That corresponds to half the electricity consumption of China."

Above it was 18%.

How is it possible to save either "18%" or "over 33%" of world electricity used for lighting when a) lighting is only 19% in the first place and b) most of this light is already fluorescent or HID?

As lamps in the Commercial and Industrial sectors together represent 62.5% of world energy consumption (again according to EIA) and are usually left on all day and/or all night, isn't it obvious that the greatest savings can be achieved by upgrading existing linear halophosphate FL tubes with magnetic ballasts to triphosphor tubes with electronic ballasts or metal halide downlights in offices, and to switch from mercury vapour street lights to ceramic metal halide and high-pressure sodium for highways? None of which requires a global incandescent ban.

"Historically, the main barrier hampering the deployment of energy efficient lighting products was their high initial cost. When first launched in the early 1980s, CFLs were 20 to 30 times more expensive to produce than their incandescent equivalents. However, CFL costs have steadily declined through use and increased competition. They now retail for about four times the price of an incandescent lamp. Consumers have traditionally been slow to come on board and according to some reports, were initially unimpressed by early models, disliking the look and functionality of these models."

Not just initially, a whole new generation have never even seen the early horrendous models so that argument has passed its best-before-date. The newer CFLs, even if they have admittedly been improved in size, colour, light-up time, affordability etc., and no longer hum and flicker, still leave much to be desired when it comes to colour rendering and general light quality. Since the light is not incandescent, it cannot ever give that incandescent light quality, so loved by people all over the world.

The only viable replacement is the Halogen Energy Saver - which oddly enough gets no attention at all despite being probably the best, cheapest and most problem-free and environmentally-friendly replacement on the market today.

"Manufacturers are of the view that consumers need to understand how using energy saving bulbs will allow for long term cost savings, as well as be assured of the quality and reliability of new models, as well as the growing number of energy saving options that are and will become available."

I'm sure consumers understand this as it's been harped and regurgitated millions of times in every conveivable medium for 20 years now. Many still prefer quality over quantity. I think manufacturers and legislators need to understand that there is still good reason not embrace the CFL - if it was such a great product, it would sell itself and no legislation or freebie campaigns would be necessary.

The new global project, which will include a centre of excellence of lighting, will build on and support further commercialization and market penetration among several developing countries that have already made efforts to promote the adoption of CFLs and to phase-out incandescent lamps—some with GEF support and the involvement of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

1. How can a project aimed at lowering light quality all over the world have the audacity to name a centre "excellence of lighting"? Talk about Orwellian!

2. What about the possible health- and environmental consequences of distributing CFLs free of charge in countries where many are still struggling with literacy and daily survival? CFLs contain mercury and need to be a) handled with care and b) recycled correctly. Will the initiators of this campaign accept personal responsibility for making sure the CFLs are not accidentally broken around children and pregnant mothers, and that every single bulb get properly recycled after use?

In the Gulf Cooperation Council (which includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Philips doesn't even wait for a governmental ban but initiates a phase-out singlehandedly, making it sound like a saintly sacrifice to help the environment when it is just a matter of getting rid of that pesky light bulb with too small a profit margin, in favour of more profitable lamps such as the hard-to-sell-CFL - naturally without mentioning any of its drawbacks such as mercury content etc.

Philips announces the phase-out of incandescent lamps in the GCC

And again this absurd focus on the small part of lighting that is used in private homes and not a word about things that could make a real difference, such as phasing out inefficient standard halophospate fluorescent tubes for offices or mercury vapour street lights.

False marketing at Home Depot

2009-09-30T16:53:00.013+02:00

No biggie but I just have to comment on this! When searching for those non-existing halogen energy savers at Home Depot, I instead found the most ignorantly written lamp description I've ever seen, for a CFL reflector lamp:

Feit Electric 23 Watt Clear Halogen Shaped Par38 CFL Reflector, 12 Pack

Well, first of all, there is no such thing as a "halogen shape". Halogen is of course a type of lighting technology, not a type of bulb. PAR38 is the bulb type. If there is a CFL stuck in the bulb, then it should say "CFL", not "Halogen" in the description.

But it gets worse:

"Color Temperature : 2700 °F"

Had to LOL when I read that. Colour temperature is measured in Kelvin.

"Save energy and the environment with this 12 pack of 23 Watt Par38 CFL bulbs. These compact fluorescent reflectors are the shape of halogen reflectors and have the same look as a floodlight but have the CFL energy saving feature! Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) are very energy efficient. CFLs use 75% less energy and last up to 13 times longer than standard incandescent bulbs."

Average rated life hours for Feit PAR38 CFLs according to their website is 8000h.

"These bulbs contain less hazardous materials than standard bulbs. The reduced levels of harmful materials in these bulbs means less hazardous waste and fewer toxins leak into the soil and poison the environment when disposed of in landfills."

This is a direct lie. All CFLs contain mercury and other harmful materials, whereas standard bulbs do not (not even lead solder after 2006). CFLs should all be returned to the store to be recycled, funny that the person who wrote this seems unaware that Home Depot is one of the few chains that accepts burned-out CFLs for recycling.

(Tried to mail this information to Home Depot but do not feel like providing all my personal details just to help them out and don't live in the U.S. so how can I choose a state.)

Energy Star wants more CFL subsidies

2009-09-30T16:13:00.003+02:00

According to the article As C.F.L. Sales Fall, More Incentives Urged Energy Star products manager Richard Karney wants continued funding for CFL programs.

I find this rather stunning. Why should taxpayers and utility customers subsidise an arbitrarily chosen product with numerous quality problems and safety issues that customers don't like, to give it an unfair market advantage over other products that customers prefer due to their safety, reliability, versatility and higher quality?

If a product is so unpopular and poorly designed that you have to give it away, isn't that an indicator that it's time to get back to the drawing board and focus on the mercury-free alternatives, making incandescent Halogen Energy Savers even more efficient, and LEDs brighter, cheaper, more incandescent-like and colour stable?

The N.Y. Times article also mentions its previous article about Halogen Energy Savers, Incandescent Bulbs Return to the Cutting Edge which says that in the U.S. these are sold exclusively at Home Depot (can't find any in their online catalogue) and Amazon.com (obviously quite a bit pricier than here in Sweden where they've been freely available for a year). Isn't this late introduction, high price and very restricted availability rather strange, considering the fact that you can buy cheap CFLs at the nearest gas station or supermarket? Does the lighting industry not want us to buy these new and improved halogen lamps which give the same top quality light as standard incandescent lamps but saving 20-50% energy?

What is it with CFLs that make them get all the special treatment, even though many are not more effective than the best halogen energy savers, contain mercury and have a long list of quality- and other problems?

Lamp Guide

2009-09-23T05:22:00.014+02:00

Now that the market is being flooded with such a confusing profusion of different lamps to replace the incandescent bulb, it is more difficult than ever to find the right lamp for the right place.

Swedish national TV consumer program Plus last week tried to sort it out with the help of Kalle Hashmi at the Swedish Energy Agency, STEM. [1] My translation of his unusually informed and balanced recommendations:

* In closed luminaires it is not advisable to use CFLs as they get too hot which shortens their life. Where you have very short burning time, such as in a closet or the bathroom, the lamp life will shorten significantly if you turn it on and off a lot. In such a situation you could preferably choose a halogen lamp.

* If temperatures are too low [= outdoors in northern winters] the [CFL] lamp does not perform at its best. The lamp is made to function best in 25 degrees [C]. In such a situation we think the best option is to use an induction lamp. Very expensive but on the other hand it lasts 100 000 hours.

* When you get older, 60+, you need more light to be able to see, and our ability to distinguish colours and contrasts diminishes. Then we need to choose a light that solves all three problems.

* When it comes to contrast, for example, it is usually limited to reading text, black on white. Then you need to choose a CFL with higher effect, e.g. 15W and you can use a correlated colour temperature around 4000K, but only for reading.

* When in a situation where colour rendition is very important, where you need to match colours, then it is very important to use a mains voltage halogen lamp because it has much better colour rendering capacity. It can be a situation like cooking, where all colours seem matte to the eyes. So what an elderly person perceives as 'brown' may actually be burnt. With halogen you see better.

* CFLs are not the answer to all our prayers. When it comes to colour rendering they are not as good, and they also contain mercury. LEDs will be the dominating technique, but it's better to replace low voltage spotlights with LED spotlights than replacing standard bulbs for general lighting.

My comments: Good advice all of it, except for the recommendation to use cool-white CFL for reading. Some research suggests that contrast decreases rather than increases with higher correlated colour temperature (blueness) and that certain blue wavelenghts may harm rather than help in cases of macular degeneration. [2] The small traces of UV which some naked CFL tubes emit may at close range may also worsen cataracts and skin conditions. [3] If you sit closer than 30 cm for more than an hour per day, the the British Health Procection Agency recommend that you use a covered CFL with an extra outer bulb. [4]

I would instead recommend frosted incandescent or halogen for reading, as clear bulbs tend to give disturbing light patterns on the page and most LEDs are either too dim or too directional. Unfortunately, thanks to the European Commission, that's no longer an option.

Replacing spotlights with LED is a better idea as LEDs are already directional by nature and perform better as reflector lights than as omnidirectional light trapped in a bulb - if you don't mind the slightly lower light quality and paler colours which can be seen clearly in this comparison between 'warm-white' & 'daylight' LED and incandescent downlights [5]:

More tips:

* For those who prefer a daylight-simulating light despite the lower contrast, white LEDs are naturally cool-white and need no special phosphor mix like CFLs, or neodymium filter like incandescents, to achieve a daylight look. Daylight lamps usually look best in the daytime. At night the cold light can look and feel more unnatural when contrasted against the dark, as we humans are traditionally used to fire light at night (though cultural and individual preferences may vary).

* Where warm-white incandescent type light with perfect colour rendering is needed, there exists no replacement other than halogen. No CFL or LED has that special sunny feel and warm glow which makes colours come alive. The next best thing after halogen would probably be metal halide HID reflector lamps, but they're usually too bright to be used at home and require special luminaires.

* In traditional environments with antique furniture and art, CFLs and LEDs tend to look particularly out of place, whereas they may look acceptable with more contemporary designs, even if a bit dull.

* CFL and LED have zero romance factor when it comes to mood lighting of your dinner table, cosy corner or favorite restaurant, whereas halogen or incandescent spots on dimmers will complement candle light and create an attractive, romantic and relaxing atmosphere. More so the warmer, the dimmer, the lower down in the room, and the more directional & narrow-beamed the lighting is.

* Around children, I'd use only LEDs or incandescent lamps (preferably frosted in all open luminaires, if EU hadn't banned them, and clear in enclosed & shaded luminaires). CFLs contain mercury and can break, whereas clear halogen lamps can get too hot, bright and glaring.

* For night-lights, I would use LED. Even if you only save 6 watts per lamp, they're usually on all night, every night.

* Any coloured lights, e.g. Christmas lights, signal lights in cars and traffic signals, stage lighting etc. can be replaced by LEDs. LEDs come already coloured and are often ideal due to their smallness and lack of excess heat. Using top quality incandescent light only to filter out most of it with a colored filter is truly a waste! Except in cold climates where the heat helps melt the snow on traffic signals.

More photo comparisons between different lamp types can be found here:
http://snarkish.com/cgi-bin/forums/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=12;t=10654
http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-09/better-energy-efficient-light-bulb http://www.hamhelpdesk.com/?p=914#more-914
http://apathyball.blogspot.com/2009/09/led-tints.html

TreeHugger CFL guide:
Be Careful When You Shop For Compact Fluorescents

Lighting design tips:
GE Lighting Style
Philips Lighting for the Home
Philips Lighting Design tool

References:
1. Plus, SVT, 17 sep 2009 http://svtplay.se/t/102796/plus
2. Artificial Lighting and the Blue Light Hazard
3. SCENIHR: Light Sensitivity
4. HPA - Emissions from compact fluorescent laights
5. Picture from http://www.ezdiyelectricity.com/?p=735

Mercury problem even worse than suspected

2009-09-13T13:00:00.023+02:00

Chinese workers mercury poisoned!

As I mentioned out in my March post about mercury in CFLs, many CFLs made by leading manufacturers in China are produced in fully automated factories where no worker is exposed to mercury. But there are also many smaller manual factories, in which the phosphors and mercury are administered by hand. The Times Online article 'Green' lightbulbs poison workers confirms this information:

"In southern China, compact fluorescent lightbulbs destined for western consumers are being made in factories that range from high-tech multinational operations to sweat-shops, with widely varying standards of health and safety." [1]

As I pointed out, hand-dripping risks more mercury being injected into each CFL than the specified limit. VITO, the consultant firm hired by the European Commission to do the preparatory study before the ban, found this procedure to be the likely explanation for the widely varying mercury content in sampled CFLs:

"VITO performed a control on the mercury content of a limited sample CFLi’s, currently available on the market. The control was made by atomic fluorescence spectrometry, conform CMA 2/I/B.3." (Sampe 1: 1.8mg; sample 2: 1.1mg; sample 3: 6.4mg; sample 4: 3.5mg, sample 5: 0.28mg.) "It must be stated that sample #3 significantly exceeded the maximum allowed mercury content. This is probably caused by the cheap but inaccurate method of mercury filling (drip filling) that seems to be very common in most small far eastern production plants." [2]

I also warned that this manual dripping will poison workers, as mercury vapourises at room temperature (+20 degrees Celsius). Now this is exactly what has happened!

"Large numbers of Chinese workers have been poisoned by mercury, which forms part of the compact fluorescent lightbulbs." [1]

Also, mercury mines in China are being reopened to meet the increased Western demand for CFLs!

"A surge in foreign demand, set off by a European Union directive making these bulbs compulsory within three years, has also led to the reopening of mercury mines that have ruined the environment." [1]

1. 'Green' lightbulbs poison workers
2. Domestic Lighting, Part 1, Chapter 4

Mercury contamination of your home

As if this is not bad enough, it appears that a broken CFL at home is actually more cause for worry than previously thought.

After the now infamous (and cited ad nauseam) accident in Maine, the Maine DEP had its own science team test how much mercury is actually left in a room after breaking a CFL on floors with and without carpets, which resulted in revised cleanup recommendations:

Revised Cleanup Guidance
Maine Compact Fluorescent Lamp Breakage Study (the original report)
Mercury in CFLs - special investigation (long and scary reading, including summary of the Maine Report + interviews & addintional info collected by Invesitate Magazine TV, New Zeeland)
New Electric Politics: The mercury issue (shorter summary of the summary)

Some quotes from the Investigate Magazine summary [with my emphases]:

"First off, the often-cited claim that bulbs contain only 5mg of mercury was clarified: it's an average. (..) The average amount of mercury in a CFL is 5 mg with a range of 0.9 to 18 mg. Obviously, the smaller (in watts) the bulb, the less mercury. Higher power (brighter) bulbs generally have more, although there can be fluctuations between brands as well."

"'Mercury concentration in the study room air often exceeds the Maine Ambient Air Guideline (MAAG) of 300 nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3) for some period of time, with short excursions over 25,000 ng/m3, sometimes over 50,000 ng/m3, and possibly over 100,000 ng/m3 from the breakage of a single compact fluorescent lamp,' the report confirms.

"That's up to 300 times higher than the recommended safe level of inhalable mercury vapour. From just one light bulb. According to the DEP scientific study, while the 300 ng/m3 limit is the maximum allowable daily dose of mercury for the sake of legislation, there is in fact no known safe level for mercury exposure."

"To put the exposure in perspective, a study of workers who had been exposed on a regular basis to 33,000 nanograms/m3 of mercury (roughly a third of the 100,000 ng/m3 peak caused by a broken bulb), and compared in a neurological test to a control group of 70 unexposed people, found they scored worse on 'mental arithmetic, 2-digit search, switching attention, visual choice reaction time and finger tapping'."

"'Sensitive populations are of particular concern with mercury exposures for a number of reasons.' 'Elderly and unhealthy individuals may already be at comprised health and be more susceptible to mercury effects than a healthy individual. For example, mercury does kidney damage which could exacerbate an already existing kidney disease'."

"'Infants and toddlers have much more vulnerable brains.' 'Mercury exposures have serious impacts on fetal and infant brain development. Elemental mercury can cross the placenta from a mother to fetus.' 'It is well established that the developing organism may be much more sensitive than the adult to neurotoxic agents,' reports Maine's DEP study. 'For example, methylmercury exposure can produce devastating effects in the fetus, including cerebral palsy, blindness, deafness, and even death, while producing no or minimal effects in the mother'."

"The report also noted that following official clean-up guidelines was still not good enough to eliminate the pollution. 'Although following the pre-study cleanup guidance produces visibly clean flooring surfaces for both wood and carpets (shag and short nap), all types of flooring surfaces tested can retain mercury sources even when visibly clean. Flooring surfaces, once visibly clean, can emit mercury immediately at the source that can be greater than 50,000 ng/m3. Flooring surfaces that still contain mercury sources emit more mercury when agitated than when not agitated. This mercury source in the carpeting has particular significance for children rolling around on a floor, babies crawling, or non mobile infants placed on the floor'."

"[T]he scientists note that the mercury contamination was considerably worse – nearly double in fact – at summertime temperatures (32C) than winter (23C)."

"Additionally (and this is why carpets have to be destroyed), the scientific team repeatedly vacuumed carpets where bulbs had broken, to see if vacuuming did eliminate the residue. They found that even after several attempts, the mercury was still trapped in the carpet fibres. To make matters worse, some of the vacuum cleaners were so contaminated that cleaning them was impossible, meaning not only was the carpet over and out, so was the vacuum cleaner."

"'If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away,' warns the US EPA."

"Maine state government is now officially recommends (...) that 'homeowners consider not utilizing fluorescent lamps in situations where they could easily be broken, in bedrooms used by infants, small children or pregnant women, or over carpets in rooms frequented by infants, small children or pregnant women.'

"Then there's the problem of what to do with the toxic waste. Surprisingly, plastic jars, like large peanut butter containers with screw top lids were little better than plastic bags, also failing to prevent mercury vapour from leaking into the house. The best method of containing bulb waste is inside a glass jar with a hermetically sealed lid."

"Brandy Bridges: 'They're not as eco-friendly as we'd like to think. Just the fact that they're being shipped in trucks and who knows how many cases get dropped? You're in your local hardware store, and they're broken on the floor, and you're walking by unknowing that there's mercury there, that people are just walking by and breathing in, and a lot of people don't have a clue'."

"Perhaps the most dangerous aspect to the CFL mercury issue, however, is not the instant 'spike' exposure caused by a breakage, but the effect of a string of breakages over the years on the toxicity of suburban homes. Picture a low income family (...) forced to use CFLs because of the light bulb ban and because they cannot afford even more expensive halogens. Picture a breakage, then try and estimate the odds of a stressed out (or drugged up) householder following proper clean-up and disposal procedures.

"Then picture a few more breakages over the years, none of them dealt with properly. Then try and figure out how much mercury might accumulate in the carpets, floorboards and walls of such a house over a 20 year span. Then try and figure out the impact such poisoning might have on every family that moves through that house, and how many taxpayer dollars might be wasted dealing with the health or crime problems that erupt downstream because of mercury exposure.

"When you buy a house or move into a rental, you won't know whether the home you're moving into is contaminated by mercury, unless you go to the extreme expense of getting it tested. Your safety, and your family's safety, will rely on the ability and willingness of other ordinary [citizens] to properly dispose of mercury laden light bulbs, and you'll never really know. The real cost is not one light bulb breakage, but how badly affected homes will be after 20 years of amateur attempts to clean up one of the deadliest neurotoxins on the planet. A generation of children crawling on mercury-infested carpets would give new meaning to the phrase, "dumbed-down".

"On the strength of these scenarios alone, there's a good case for actually banning the use of CFLs in homes, outright and immediately."

I couldn't agree more. And I don't see how any responsible politician or environmental organisation could either, after getting this new information.

Mercury & coal

For those who still believe that incandescent bulbs "cause more mercury emissions via coal plants", please understand that it is nothing but a cheap PR trick which seems to originate from the pro-CFL/anti-lightbulb lobby organisation IAEEL 1993, and based alternately on:

1. U.S. conditions in which, at that time, 59% of electricity production came from coal. [1] June 2008 it was 48,5% and decreasing. [2]

2. A Danish 'study' (= calculation excercise) from 1991 [3] in which a 60W (730 lm) 1000h incandescent (GLS) was compared with a 15W (900 lm) 8000h CFL, the latter assumed to contain 0.69 mg mercury, while electricity production from coal was assumed at 95%, as was the case in Denmark at that time - the highest in Europe! [4]. Based on these assumptions, CFLs were estimated to emit 1.69 mg mercury per million lumen-hour during production, operation and crapping phase, and incandescents 4.86 mg. However, these figures were seriously flawed then, and are even more so today:

a. "0.69 mg mercury" in CFLs is seems like a random fantasy figure, especially back in 1991! In 1993, IAEEL estimated CFLs to contain an average of 5 mg. [1] Eu consultants VITO consider 4 mg to be a realistic average now. [5] (Both are extremely pro-CFL and are not likely to exaggerate.)

b. According to EuroStat, the EU share of coal used in electricity production was 39% in 1991 and has since decreased to 29% in 2006 (though varying widely between different countries). [6]

Correcting for a and b (while still assuming the 15W CFL to give as much light as a 60W GLS and lasting 8 times longer) we get:

- GLS operation phase: 4.86 mg - 66% = 1.65 mg (as long as EU permits unfiltered coal emissions) = total 1.65 mg Hg on average. (In countries that don't use fossil fuels for electricity production, like Luxembourg, Iceland, Norway, Sweden & Switzerland, the sum total is 0.)

- CFL operation phase: 1 mg - 66% = 0.34 mg + scrapping phase (assuming no recycling): 4 mg = total 4.34 mg Hg.

In other words, when feeding correct numbers into the calculation, we get the opposite result!

See also my recently updated post Life Cycle Assessment for more LCA studies and details. And my previous posts about Mercury and Recycling.

1. Mercury: A Broader Perspective, IAEEL Newsletter 3/93
2. EIA: Electric Power Monthly, September 2009
3. Life Cycle Analysis of Integral Compact Fluorescent Lamps, 1991
4. More on mercury, IAEEL Newsletter 1/94
5. Domestic Lighting, Part 1, Chapter 4
6. Eurostat: Panorama of Energy 2007

The Bizarre Ban

2009-09-07T06:15:00.020+02:00

Back to researching & blogging after a month of well needed rest...

The EU incandescent ban

The first phase of the absurd incandescent ban has now taken effect.

* As of this month it is now illegal to produce and import 100W incandescent bulbs and frosted incandescent bulbs. And frosted Halogen Energy Savers! (Selling already existing stocks is still permitted.)

The regulation also includes requirements for new product information on the packaging for all lamps (which I think is a good thing that should have been required long ago).

Manufacturers support this phase-out. "We are very positive", says Magnus Frantzell, CEO of the Swedish Lighting Manufacturers Association to Expressen. Well, what a surprise...

But it will not stop here. This is the full schedule:

* 1 September 2010: clear 75W (over 750 lumen) lamps will be banned (through minimum efficiency requirements).

* 1 September 2011: clear 60W (over 450 lm) lamps will be banned.

* 1 September 2012: clear 7W-40W (over 60 lm) lamps will be banned.

* 1 September 2013: tightened standards on CFLs and LEDs. No lamp type will be removed from the market, only lamps with poor performance. Possibly non-dimmalbe lamps will be banned.

* 2014: Review of the regulations by the EU Commission.

* 1 September 2016: tightened standards for clear halogen lamps. Only energy class B halogen lamps (C for some special cap lamps) will be permitted, which currently only the super-expensive IR halogen lamps with integrated transformer reaches. All other halogen lamps will be banned! [1]

Exceptions: "special-purpose lamps designed essentially for applications such as traffic signals, terrarium lighting and household appliances and clearly indicated as such on accompanying product information are not subject to these eco-design requirements." Examples of special-purpose lamps: aquariums & terrarium lamps; germicidal lamps, lamps for display/optics; stage, studio, TV & theatre lamps; photo flash lamps; projection lamps, IR lamps; traffic signal lamps for roads, trains & aviation; car headlight lamps; oven & fridge lamps; temperarture- & shock-proof lamps; mirror lamps. [2]

Street, office & industry lighting

Somehow, without any public debate whatsoever, it seems that the EU Commission has also just snuck through a regulation on office, industry and street lighting. [4, 5]

* 2010: Phase out of T8 halophosphate fluorescent tubes (through minimum efficiency requirements).

My comment: This is good as they are not very efficient, contain more mercury, often flicker due to old type magnetic ballasts and the poor-colour-rendering light truly sucks. Should have been phased out decades ago.

* 2012: Phase out of T12 fluorescent (FL) tubes.

My comment: This is probably good too, although it will require many businesses to purchase new fixtures for the thinner, more efficient tubes with HF-ballasts.

* 2012: Phase out of high-pressure sodium (HPS) standard quality lamps (only E27/ E40/ PGZ12 affected).

My comment: This is acceptable as long as there are better quality lamps of the same type available. Not acceptable if it includes the decorative frosted incandescent-like lamps used in parks and Old Town-environments across Europe. These are somewhat less efficient but are needed for sensitive environments. Quality vs quantity. It cannot all be about quantity of light, we also need quality of life.

* 2012: Phase out of less efficient metal halide (MH) lamps (only E27/E40/PGZ12 affected).

My comment: Again fine, if there are better lamps of the same type still available.

* 2014: Review of the regulations by the EU Commission.

* 2015: Phase out of Hígh-Pressure Mercury (HPM) lamps.

My comment: Excellent! Should have been banned decades ago, as soon as there were HPS or MH replacement lamps available for the same lumnaires. HPM lamps are most commonly used as street lights in cities. They give a truly horrid purple-white light which tends to turn green with age, contain more mercury than other lamps and are markedly less efficient than HPS, MH and CMH lamps.

The new warm-white Ceramic Metal Halide (CMH) are about twice as efficient and give a very incandescent-like light: truly great for street & park lighting.

* 2015: Phase out of plug-in/retrofit high-pressure sodium lamps (= direct replacement for HPM). Plug-in lamps must correspond to Super/Plus HPS level; almost all plug-in/retrofit lamps will be banned.

* 2017: Phase out of Poor performing metal halide (MH) lamps: (only E27/E40/PGZ12 affected).

My comment: Seems that the EU consultants and Commission are hell-bent on removing any light from the market that is remotely attractive and human-friendly. Warm-white MH lamps, and improved colour HPS lamps are the most incandescent-like alternatives after halogen. Phasing out these lamps may mean that there will be no frosted HID lamps left on the market, despite their usefulness commercially indoors. The Eco-design group does not care how the lamp is used, light quantity at all cost is their only goal.

It also means that every EU country will be forced to replace the whole street luminaire when stocks of replacement lamps run out. This will be good for the environment but may be more costly than some countries or counties can afford. Why not instead give special EU grants or other incentives to those who install the most energy efficient technology available, instead of removing whole lamp groups from the market??

Reflector lamps

As mentioned earlier in this blog, reflector lamps is the next group up for slaughter. [6] Preparation is going on currently and decision will be taken next year.

Halogen replacement bulbs for spotlights, floodlights and downlighters are at high risk of being recommended for phase-out, making millions of expensive desklights, spotlights and recessed luminaires useless as there are no CFL or LED alternatives for these tiny bulbs or tubes. Great for the luminaire market but not so great for the individual home owner who may have invested a gread deal of money into installing recessed fixtures etc.

Professional lighting designers despair at the thought, as should many galleries, shops, restaurants, hotels etc. as they will then no longer be able to create the uniquely luxurious and attractive lighting environments for their customers, made possible only with halogen spots.

If the lobbyists that keep pressuring the EU Commission into such follies have their way, we will be facing a very cold, dull and drab lighting future.

The logical thing to do would be to ban only the poorest performing lamps in each lamp group, since each lamp type has its own unique qualities that oftan cannot be replaced by another lamp type (the only exception being HPM lamps for which replacement with HPS, MH or CMH is an improvement both quality- and quanlity-wise).

* As no other lamps can replace small halogen bulbs for reflector lamps, neither quality-wise or size-wise, only the poorest performing in this class should be banned, not the whole group.

* As frosted incandescent lamps cannot quality-wise be replaced by anything but frosted halogen lamps, the ban on the latter should be lifted.

1. New EU directive: Say goodbye to the light bulb (Osram summary)
2. EuP Directive About Non Directional Domestic Lighting (detailed slide show)
3. EU directive - special purpose lighting (Osram summary)
4. EU directive - street, office and industry lighting (Osram summary)
5. Commission Regulation (EC) No 245/2009 of 18 March 2009 (original document)
6. Spotlight and downlighter bulbs next to be banned by EU

Coloured LED review

2009-07-31T01:16:00.030+02:00

Here I'll be reviewing coloured LED lamps. The two first are moved here from my Energy Savers review (which I'll also keep updating with new bulbs as I find them) and below my latest and most entertaining purchase so far.

* 1.1W Osram Lunetta Colormix LED night-light

Info: Plugs right into the electric socket and has a little button at the bulb base: each new click gives light blue, hot pink, cool green, soft orange, bright blue, alternating and no light. Also has a light sensor and turns itself off in the daytime or when ambient light is bright enough. Rather sophisticated for being the size of a golf-ball and will probably last 'forever'. Price about 15€.

Impression: Love this one! LED technology used for what it does best: produce coloured decorative/lead light at extremely low wattage and heat loss. Is hardly even warm when you touch it. Great for kids!

* 3W unknown brand RGB E27 LED

Info: Remote-controlled LED retrofit lamp that can replace a standard bulb. Light output 140 lumen. Price about 36€ (incl shipping).

Impression: I wanted to know a) if I could get a more natural looking warm-white by tuning it myself and b) if I'd be able to create any shade imaginable. The answer to both is "no". a) The white is nowhere near white, but a visible mix of different colours. b) The 16 colours are pre-set and cannot be adjusted manually as I had mistakenly assumed. A home spectral test with a DVD shows the blue-green part of the spectrum very clearly, then a dip in the yellow-orange area, then a nice bright red and no magenta. Lighting food and clothes with it made red bell peppers and a blue robe look almost fluorescent.

But what did I think of it otherwise? Well, the truth is that I love it anyway! What is probably an unintentional design flaw - that in mixed colours it shows the mixing colours separated into concentric rings instead of being displayed as a smooth blend - actually makes its light beam uniquely special, intriguing and pretty, as long as one does not need a white light to see well in. It's purely decorative, but very much so!

This is what its beam looks like on my pebble-patterned desk:

* 7W Philips Living Colors RGB LED

Info: Remote-controlled indirect floodlight that puts colour on a white wall. It does what I thought the simple RGB lamp would do: with the remote control it is possible to choose any hue by scrolling on the colour circle, and fine-tune both colour saturation (from deep to pastel) and light intensity (from bright to dim) to the desired shade. Price about 150€. Also comes in a mini-model for around 100€.

Impression: I'm fairly impressed with this one. Very cool futuristic design: a decorative object in itself. Almost the size of a soccer-ball (though more resembling a small gold-fish bowl with a goth vase in it). Nicely designed and easy-to-use remote as well.

Great light for mood & decorative purposes. Not sure about the "16 million colours" - that's probably more theoretical than practically achievable - but it seems to have enough versatility to let one create one's favorite hue and shade fairly exactly. Except a good white, just various pastel tints (which are nice in themselves, though not perfectly white).

I'll give it 4½ lightbulbs out of 5. One of the most fun and versatile lighting products I've ever seen! I especially like the possibility of creating pastels, as they make the room brighter and create a softer and more sophisticated lightscape. I'm finding that I can easily change it to match the dawn outside my window as it gets brighter and sunnier.

Example of how the beam looks on my (unfortunately not flat) white wall when I tune it from softest pink to brightest red:

YouTube has some videos of varying quality of how it looks while shifting colours:

Update 1 Aug: After using it as general lighting in my home office for a couple of days instead of my halogen two-way desk-light, I find that it has an odd side-effect on my vision. Directly after using it and turning it off, all natural light looks strange and 'fluorescent-like' for a while until my eyes have readjusted to normal lighting. I've noticed this with the other RGB LED as well. This does not happen even after a whole day staring at my CRT screen.

Update 4 Aug: I first thought the explanation might be the odd spectral distribution unique to LED in general, but it's probably as simple as the light in the RGB LEDs being coloured and hyperstimulating the cones. After using the warm-white GU10 LED spotlight as desk lighting for a day, I do not get this effect.

The Bush-Obama Energy Bill

2009-07-09T14:03:00.083+02:00

Just a few words about the "new" U.S. Energy Bill (The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007) and how it affects incandescent lamps.

Original Energy Bill, 2007 (point 321 about lighting)
Energy Bill, 2009 amended version **snooze-warning on both**
Obama Administration Launches New Energy Efficiency Efforts (DOE summary)

Oddly enough, Americans seem to have made this into a party politics issue and mutual mud-slinging contest, when it was actually initiated under president Bush and only finalised and somewhat amended by the Obama administration.

But nevermind, let's see if we can sort out what the new lighting rules are:

1. It appears that the original idea was to regulate all types of fluorescent and incandescent lighting at the same time. But doing so too hastily might cause major problems and expenses for businesses - which use the majority of the linear flourescent tubes and reflector lamps produced. Thus regulating the latter two lamp types requires very careful consideration and in-depth analysis first, which takes time (several more years, according to DOE).
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps

2. Incandescent general service lighting is easier to regulate and causes problems mainly for private persons, so the part pertaining to GLS lamps was lifted out of the lighting section in the original bill to be rushed through congress straight away.

(Ironic side-note: What a coincidence that this happens to be the same popular light bulb which is so unprofitable to manufacturers that they literally can't wait to get it off the market! Only a scant few weeks after the "new and improved" Energy Bill, GE announces the closing down of several their U.S. and Canadian light bulb factories - despite the new GLS standards not taking effect until 2012.)

But there seems to be a lot of confusion as to what the new standards actually are - and small wonder if you look at how the rule is written: General Service Incandescent Lamp Provisions Contained in EISA 2007. (Why not just state required lumen per watt for each wattage class, as is done for the other lamp types?) Luckily for us, EnergyStar attempts to sort it out, in plain English:

"The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (the “Energy Bill”), signed by the President on December 18, 2007 requires all light bulbs use 30% less energy than today’s incandescent bulbs by 2012 to 2014.

"The phase-out will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014. By 2020, a Tier 2 would become effective which requires all bulbs to be at least 70% more efficient (effectively equal to today’s CFLs). It’s not entirely correct to say "CFLs will be required" or “incandescents will be phased out” because the standards set by the bill are technology neutral, and by 2012, a next generation of incandescent bulbs could satisfy the 30% increased efficiency.

"There are many types of incandescent bulbs that are exempt from this law: any kind of specialty light (ie. bulb in refrigerator), reflector bulbs, 3-way bulbs, candelabras, globes, shatter resistant, vibration service, rough service, colored bulbs (i.e. "party bulbs"), bug lights, plant lights.

"The law applies to the sale of bulbs, not the use of existing stock of bulbs."

That sounds straightforward enough, but look what the rule actually says:

Note the unusual max wattages. It so happens that the only lamps which exist in such wattages (29, 43, 53, 72W) are the new incandescent halogen energy savers. Which indicates that standard incandescent GLS bulbs are already counted out of the equation from the start (no doubt so that manufacturers can sell their halogen replacements at extortion rates to all those who hate CFL and LED light).

But the quirky thing is that the minimum lumen requirements for each wattage class are set just above what the best energy saving mains voltage halogen replacement lamps can produce today... hmmmmm... Checking manufacturer cataloges for actual lumen output, it seems that they don't quite save the claimed 30% but more like around 20%. So much for "truth in advertising"...

Seems they have done the same thing as with the CFL: replace e.g. a 60W incandescent (which gives 700-800+ lumen) with a 12W CFL, or in this case a 43W halogen, which both give only 630 lm! If you only count the wattage, 60W -30% is 42W, yes, but then it needs to give as many lumens as a 60W bulb too, otherwise it's just one more case of consumer fraud.

"Oh, it's such a small difference, the customer will never notice." (I've actually heard manufacturer representatives use that exact phrase when I've asked about the light deprication in CFLs.)

So, have lamp manufacturers shot themselves in the foot by claiming their halogen energy savers save 30%, as government experts seem to have taken their word for it and set lumen requirements at that exact level..?

Back to decoding the confusing table:

* 2012 the standard incandescent lamps are out (unless some manufacturer is able to make them more energy efficient - and profitable..). All you can use is up to max 72W halogen energy saver (which is meant to equal a 100W standard incandescent GLS lamp) - if they can improve it to the full 30% efficacy by then.

* 2013 the 72W halogen goes. Max permitted is an (improved) 53W halogen (= '75W GLS').

* 2014 the 53W halogen goes. Max permitted is an (improved) 43W halogen (= '60W GLS').

* 2015 the 43W halogen goes. Max permitted is an (improved) 29W halogen (= '40 GLS').

What will all those elderly and vision impaired do, who may need bright light of the highest quality (= incandescent light) in order to see?

EnergyStar claiming that the phase-out "will start with the 100W incandescent bulb and end with the 40W" is thus not correct, if one is to follow what the table mandates. Oh dear, if not even EnergyStar can interpret the table correctly, who can one trust? (Although EnergyStar also forwards the PR truth-stretching about CFLs "saving 75% energy" and "lasting 10 years" etc. - despite government & consumer tests + growing customer complaints giving a very different picture - so I guess they're not exactly an infallible source of information.)

Update 3 Aug: Something is definitely not right here... The only existing incandescent halogen lamp on the market which should pass the new requirements is the expensive and hard-to-find Philips Master Classic IR halogen with integrated transformer (see my Energy Saver Review) - which saves 42-45% (if you look at lumen/watt) not 50% as advertised, compared with a standard incandescent. But only the 20W seems to qualify, the 30W misses the max 29W category by 1W and the max 43W category by 130 lumen, despite being the most efficient incandescent-type lamp on the market, and with a life-span of 3000 hours!

And by the way, 72% Don’t Want Feds Changing Their Light Bulbs, but I guess legislators care more about keeping the lighting industry happy than about how their voters feel. Because it sure isn't going to save the planet, quite the opposite (but more about that in another post).

Next up for slaugher are reflector lamps (both in Europe and the U.S.).

Thanks to Peter at http://www.ceolas.net/#li01x for most of the links.

U.S. Energy Statistics

2009-06-26T20:40:00.043+02:00

Energy Statistics is not an exact science and the more detailed information you seek, the more difficult it gets. Making estimates of national energy comsumption, and even energy consumption per sector, based on information from energy importers and distributors, seems to be a fairly straightforward matter of collecting and compiling available data. But when it comes to detailed splits of how this energy is used in each sector it gets a lot more complicated, time consuming and costly, especially in the domestic sector, as this requires surveying thousands of homes, in order to get a decent average of typical household energy use, as described here: Survey Methods

The official source of U.S. energy statistics, the Energy Information Agency has not published any new detailed household data since 2001 because it is so difficult to make correct estimates for such a large country with such varying climate zones, housing types and economic conditions. But as percentages often stay somewhat similar within a decade - unless something unusual occurs - the available data may still give a reasonably correct estimate even part of it is somewhat dated. (I've been informed that it is more important for accuracy to stick to the same source than to the same year, as different agencies may measure in different ways and include different things in their calculations.)

All sectors

- U.S. share of world primary energy use 2006: 21.1% [1]

- Total U.S.energy consumption 2008: 99.3 quadrillion Btu (British thermal units) [2]
End-use sector shares of total consumption 2008 [3]:
- Residential (private homes) 22%
- Commercial 19%
- Industrial 31%
- Transportation 28%

Residential sector

A. Applying the proper hierarchies (see my first post about energy statistics) we get the following picture by combining the available data from EIA:

- Total U.S. energy consumption 2008: 99.3 qBtu [2]
- Residential energy consumption 2008: 21.64 [2]
- Residential electricity consumption 2008: 4.71 [4]
- Lighting part of household electricity 2001: 8.8% [5] = 0.42 qBtu = 1.94% of household energy consumption or 0.42% of total U.S. energy consumption.

B. But not all household lamps are incandescent, as many have already switched to halogen, CFL or LED. In 2001, the incandescent percentage of household lighting was around 95%. Today it is estimated by EIA at around 70% and CFL at around 20%. Plus, many have dimmers and sensors installed and may already have cut their incandescent lighting consumption. But let's say 70% for simplicity's sake = 1.36% of residential energy consumption, or 0.32% of national energy consumption.

C. Of these 1.36%, CFL proponents hope to save 75% = 1.02% of residential energy comsumption. But, as shown under CFL Analysis - Savings Summary, the average CFL savings are realistically probably closer to 50% than 75% (especially if you include the covered CFL bulbs with lower output and all the cheap CFLs that do not meet EnergyStar standards) = 0.68% of household energy consumption, or 0.16%of national.

D. Not all of the incandescents left will be suitable for replacement. This can be due to luminaire restrictions (e.g. downlight or reflector); to the need for perfect colour rendering, immediate switch-on, sparkling effect or a relaxing, attractive light environent; to vision problems, hypersensitivity to UV or other medical reasons; or to plain dislike for the medocre light quality of CFLs.

E. When switching to energy saving lights, it's easy to start using more light instead, or to leave them on for longer, thinking energy savers use so little anyway (see Jevons paradox) or because the recommendation is to not turn CFLs on-and-off too frequently. Article comment to illustrate: "My dad switched to CFLs, but now he just leaves the lights on all the time because he says 'they use so little power, I can’t be bothered to turn them off'." Many CFLs are also supposed to be turned on for 15 minutes to 3 hours at a time in order not to shorten their life dramatically.

So, in reality, the potential savings we're talking about are in the order of up to 0.68% of total residential energy use or 0.16% of total U.S. energy consumption, probably less when taking D into consideration, and possibly none considering E.

Does this strike anyone as chasing very small drops in a very large energy ocean, while the BIG energy consumers: heating & cooling, water heating, transportation, commerce and industry can continue using up the remaining 99+% in peace as everyone thinks they've saved the planet by buying a few CFLs?

Commercial sector

- Total U.S. energy consumption 2008: 99.3 QBtu [2]
- Commercial energy consumption 2008: 18.54 QBtu [2]
- Commercial electricity consumption 2008: 4.61 QBtu [4]
- Lighting* part of commercial electricity 2003: 37.6% [6] = 1.34 Qbtu = 7.22% of commercial energy consumption or 1.35% of national.
*Including public street and highway lighting

There are many ways of calculating the percentage of each lamp type being used in commercial buildings: annual lamp sales; annual luminaire sales; current existence of different luminaire types, lumen-hours per year and lamp type, lit floor space, energy consumption per lamp type in Btu, in kWh etc. Finding recent info that goes into such details is difficult. Here is just one example, which may be still be reasonably representative (though most likely some incandescents are already replaced by CFLs):

Approximate percentage of lit floor space in commercial (non-mall) buildings 2003 [7]:
FL & CFL 74%
HID 9%
Incandescent 10%
Halogen 4%

So, even though lighting uses a larger percentage of the electricity consumption in the commercial sector, the incandescent part is so small - and shrinking - that replacing the few that are left is not going to make much of a difference energy-wise, only ruin the romantic atmosphere in restaurants, clubs, hotels and museums. (Offices rarely use incandescent lamps, except possibly a few in executive, reception or recreation areas, where their softer light may be needed.)

The greatest savings on lighting can probably be done by:

1. Upgrading existing poor quality FL tubes and luminaires in commercial buildings to T8 tri-phosphor tubes with electronic ballasts, to metal halide spots/downlights or to LED spots/downlights.

2. Adjusting illuminance levels downwards in offices (as less light is needed when working online, than was needed when most office work consisted of physical paper work) and giving more individual control to users so they can turn down or off lights when not needed.

3. Using occupancy sensors and turning most office lights off at night.

4. Phasing out inefficient and poor-quality high-pressure mercury HID street lamps, replacing them with ceramic metal halide.

5. Switching to LED traffic signals.

None of which requires banning incandescent lamps.

References:

1. EIA: Annual Energy Review 2008 (p. 348) Figure 11.3
2. EIA: Annual Energy Review 2008 (p. 41) Figure 1.0
3. EIA: Annual Energy Review 2008 (p. 76) Figure 2.1a
4. EIA: Annual Energy Review 2008 (p. 263) Figure 8.0
5. EIA: End-Use Consumption of Electricity 2001
6. EIA: Annual Energy Review 2008 (p. 102) Figure 2.11
7. EIA: Lighting in Commercial Buildings 2003 Table 1

Energy Savers Review

2009-06-09T10:57:00.075+02:00

Examples of energy saving lamps I've bought to see how they look in a home environment. They all looked good enough in the shop, but it's always hard to tell in the bright and predominantly fluorescent light-mix of a shop. Brief descriptions + my personal, subjective impressions of how they look in my home environment. (Note: lamp pictures do not reflect actual size, and prices are converted from SEK to Euro, include 20% VAT and may vary between countries.)

* 28W Osram E27 clear Halogen Energy Saver A-lamp

Info: CRI 100 (= full colour rendering). Costs about twice as much than its incandescent equivalent, uses about 20% less energy (though advertised as 30% less) and lasts twice as long.

Impression: Looks exactly like the 40W incandescent equivalent it's supposed to replace, though slightly brighter and with a rather glaring light point so best for luminaires with a shade.

* 28W Osram Spot R50 E14 Halogen Energy Saver reflector lamp

Info: CRI 100. Costs only slightly more than its incandescent equivalent, uses 20-30% less energy and lasts twice as long. Price only slightly slightly higher than incandescent reflector lamps.

Impression: Looks exactly like the 40W incandescent it's supposed to replace. And when I say "exactly", that means exactly and not "more or less similar", since halogen is an incandescent light, only concentrated into a smaller inner bulb.

* 30W Philips Master Classic E27 frosted Halogen Energy Saver A-bulb with infra-red coating and integrated transformer

Info: A low-voltage retrofit lamp that can be used in a standard mains-voltage luminaire. CRI 100. Costs over 10 times as much (€13) due to the built-in electronics, but then it lasts 3000 hours, so divide that by 3 and then deduct the 50% electricity savings and it's not so bad.

Impression: This one too gave a nice warm-white incandescent light that looked bright enough to replace a 60W bulb, as it promised. I could not tell it apart from a standard 60W frosted bulb.

* 7W Osram Duluxstar 'warm-white' E14 frosted CFL mini globe

Info: Appearance-wise, one of the most incandescent-like CFLs on the market, with a correlated colour temperature (CCT) at 2700K. CRI around 80 = standard (mediocre) colour rendering capacity. Price: about €10, but if you want a decent-looking (and decent-performing) CFL, be prepared to pay for it.

Impression: Visually, the light looked very soft and incandescent-like in the shop, but at home it still has a touch of that pink shade typical of flourescent light, though less markedly so than its early predecessors, more warm-pink than cool-pink, and admittedly an improvement compared with older CFLs and all the cheap budget lamps on the market.

As for colour rendering capacity, my do-it-yourself-spectral analysis with the back of a DVD shows the spectrum cut up into distinct bands with all the wavelenghts inbetween missing, as is normal for standard-quality FL light.

It does look bright enough to replace the promised 40W bulb (now in the beginning, will fade with age) though it took several minutes to reach full output. And the light was actually nicest before it did. Now it has turned a little more pink-white and makes the room look uniform and sterile. Many may not notice that much of a difference from an incandescent, or care if they did. But as I have a very well-developed sensitivty to such nuances, I could not relax in such a light and would never use it in my home.

* 1.2W Anslut 'warm-white' GU10 20-point LED reflector lamp

Info: 20-diode spotlight. Price was decent for an LED, just over 6€.

Impression: Don't quite know what to make of this one. On the one hand it's impressive to get so much light - at least in one direction - out of what is only 1.2W!

I picked this particular lamp because the light looked more white than the markedly green-white or blue-white I'd seen previously. It seems to have decent colour rendering too, both to the naked eye and in my DVD-test where I could see the full spectrum reflected without any large visible gaps (though no magenta).

Colour: Still slightly green-yellow-white (which is not surprising as 'warm-white' LEDs usually consist of blue diodes with yellow filters). Some may like this slightly cooler light (around 3000K, but gets a little warmer over time) but for my personal taste it still looks too much like FL light and gives my kitchen an industrial feel which dos not complement the warm colours and traditional design in a good way.

I have to say I was disappointed as I prefer mercury-free LED before CFL and would love to find a good enough LED to recommend instead. For commercial purposes fine, but not for home lighting unless that industrial feel is what you prefer. I'll keep looking.

(If you're a producer or retailer and have one you think is good enough, feel free to mail me and send me a sample.)

New (5 Aug):

* 1.8W Kjell & Co 'warm-white' frosted LED E27 mini globe

Info: Price around 12€.

Impression: This lamp is a joke. It's not even remotely warm-white, it's cool-white like a moon-beam, and about as dim. It gives only 65 lumen, less than a 10W incandescent, which is good for absolutely nothing. You certainly can't read in it and it's not warm enough to be used as mood-lighting (except at a Halloween party perahps). And this was the brightest LED globe light I could find in Stockholm retail stores!

Looking at the small print on the back of the package it says this lamp type is recommended "for decoration" or "for dark spaces like the cellar stairs, the attic passage-way, the garage or storage area". But it is not decorative, just dim and generally gloomy, now why would anyone want to put such a light in their cellar stairs and risk breaking their neck, or in spaces that are usually already creepy enough without adding a dim ghost light to it?

The only reasonable application would be as night light, but as this bulb requires a real luminaire with a full E27-socket, which makes it useless as night light too. (Instead, see my Coloured LED Review for a really great LED plug-in nightlight that costs only slightly more.)

New (9 Oct): Now I've sent for some higher watt LEDs from an online store that are supposed to be better quality.

* 4W clear 'warm-white' SMD LED E27 mini globe

Info: Price around 19€. Rated life 50 000 hours. 350 lumen or "about as much light as a 40W incandescent but using 1/10th the energy". Will not get warm, light up 100% in half a second.

Impression: Yes, like all LEDs it lights up instantly and is luke-warm enough to touch even after being on for a while.

Colour: Warm-pink-white that looks similar to 'warm-white' fluorescent light rather than to golden-white incandescent light.

Brightness: Nowhere near that of a 40W incandescent. The 350 lm may be correct but a 40W incandescent gives 410-505 lumen and visual comparison between an incandescent 40W lamp seems to confirm it, so this seems to be another case of consumer fraud.

At the same time it is too glaring to the naked eye and must be used in a lamp with a thick shade so that the glaring little dots don't shine through. Which reduces its brightness even more as it is designed to throw light to the sides rather than downwards. Tried it in different luminaires. In modern table- & floor luminaires it doesn't work very well: what little light that finds its way out of the shade is very dim and gloomy indeed, and of no use whatsoever. A classic architect luminaire seems to be the only one it works with. The wide shade spreads the light much better than the very directional GU10 spotlight. In this luminaire it reading works if you can ignore the faint light dots reflected on the page.

Light quality: Like the other LEDs, the spectrum of this one is continuous in the warm end of the spectrum but spiky in the blue end, with no magenta. Colour in the room look sort of dampend, as if seen through a grey filter. Whatever room I try it in, it turns all gloomy and depressing. No life.

* 3W Cree 'warm-white' frosted LED E14 mini globe

Info: Price around 24€. 120 lumen or equivalent of a 25W incandescent. 50 000 hr life. Ceramic foot and chromed aluminium house.

Impression: The frosted glass makes this one easier on the eyes and works well enough to read in. The socket limits its usefulness as its long heat sink makes it stick out too far in all the various E14 reflector luminaires I have. Putting it in a luminaire with a shade will reduce light output too much. The best fit would probably be in a vanity light for those who want a non-glaring white.

Colour: Cool-pink-white. More like fluorescent light and even less incandescent-like than the Osram CFL tested above.

Brightness: Again erroneous equivalence info. An 25W incandescent lamp gives 215-235 lm so a 120 lm should not be enough to replace it. However, this one actually seems even brighter than a 25W incandescent, though the light itself has a duller quality.

Light quality: Continuous spectrum but with green, violet and magenta missing. Colours in the room tend to look a bit grey and faded and white surfaces look distinctly cool-pink, even though the bulb itself looks more neutral-white.

******************************************************

More lamp descriptions can be found on this site: http://lightbulbmarket.blogspot.com/

EUP Elections

2009-06-04T11:59:00.013+02:00

Planning to vote in the upcoming EU Parliament elections?

Info on which parties are against the incandescent ban is not easy to find. These are the only ones I know for sure:

* Britain: United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), Conservative.

* Germany: Free Democratic Party (Freie Demokratische Partei, FDP), Liberal.

* Sweden: June List (junilistan, jl) cross-political, in EU Independence/Democracy group. Thinks the incandescent ban is a joke, or in Sören Wibe's words, "symbol politics and hypocricy".

* Sweden: Feministiskt initiativ (fi). Don't have a specific policy on such a marginal issue but think EU should concern themselves more with human rights issues than micromanaging the use of consumer products.

The other major parties in Sweden seem to be for the ban, including the few that are usually EU-skeptic, such as the left vänsterpartiet and green party miljöpartiet.

* EU: Libertas (pan-European reform party). Thinks EU interferes too much in general, that it is too far removed from the people, that more decisions should be returned to national governments, and is therefore against legislation such as the incandescent ban.

If anyone knows of more parties against the ban, feel free to mail or post in the comments section.

EU Energy Statistics

2009-05-30T14:03:00.060+02:00

This is a very confusing subject so both journalists, politicians, as well as the general public, can easily be misled by numbers thrown around which (deliberately or by inability to discriminate) often confuse energy with electricity. You have to think in tiers or hierarchies, and be very careful not to confuse one level with another.

1. World energy use.

2. National, federal or continental energy consumption.

3. Sector total energy use (e.g. transportation, industry, service/commercial, domestic/residential).

4. Sector by fuel type (e.g. natural gas, coal/coke, lignite, petroleum, renewable, electricity) in that country or federation.

5. Fuel type (e.g. electricity) split by end-use (e.g. space heating, space cooling, water heating, refrigeration, cooking, home electronics, lighting).

You also have to combine statistics from different areas and separate tiers to get the complete and accurate picture. Here I've used EuroStat: Panorama of Energy [1] and the EuroStat statistics for the lighting part of home electricity cited in the European Commision's Residential Lighting Consumption and Saving Potential in the Enlarged EU [2] to get the national energy consumption (level 1), residential (pritate households') energy consumption (level 2), residential electricity consumpion (level 3) and lighting part of residential electricity consumption (level 4) for EU-27 2006 (in 1000 TOE):

Austria (AT)
National final energy consumption: 26 753
Household total energy consumption: 6 631
Household electricity consumption: 1 358
Lighting part of hh electricity: 93 = 6.87%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 1.4%

Belgium (BE)
National final energy consumption: 38 165
Household total energy consumption: 8 932
Household electricity consumption: 1 954
Lighting part of hh electricity: 240 = 12.23%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 2.69%

Bulgaria (BG)
National final energy consumption: 10 028
Household total energy consumption: 2 180
Household electricity consumption: 800
Lighting part of hh electricity: 80 = 10%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 3.67%

Cyprus (CY)
National final energy consumption: 1 840
Household total energy consumption: 347
Household electricity consumption: 129
Lighting part of hh electricity: 32 = 25%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 9.22%

Czech Republic (CZ)
National final energy consumption: 26 251
Household total energy consumption: 6 509
Household electricity consumption: 1 307
Lighting part of hh electricity: 157 = 12%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 2.41%

Denmark (DK)
National final energy consumption: 15 627
Household total energy consumption: 4 419
Household electricity consumption: 910
Lighting part of hh electricity: 127 = 14%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 2.87%

Estonia (EE)
National final energy consumption: 2 775
Household total energy consumption: 881
Household electricity consumption: 144
Lighting part of hh electricity: 26 = 28%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 2.95%

Finland (FIN)
National final energy consumption: 26 679
Household total energy consumption: 4 947
Household electricity consumption: 1 818
Lighting part of hh electricity: 253 = 13.93%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 5.11%

France (FR)
National final energy consumption: 157 779
Household total energy consumption: 44 658
Household electricity consumption: 12 636
Lighting part of hh electricity: 812 = 6.43%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 1.82%

Germany (DE)
National final energy consumption: 223 062
Household total energy consumption: 69 124
Household electricity consumption: 12 157
Lighting part of hh electricity: 1 013 = 8.13%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 1.46%

Greece (GR)
National final energy consumption: 21 454
Household total energy consumption: 5 491
Household electricity consumption: 1 520
Lighting part of hh electricity: 225 = 18%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 4.1%

Hungary (HU)
National final energy consumption: 17 920
Household total energy consumption: 6 182
Household electricity consumption: 985
Lighting part of hh electricity: 246 = 25%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 3.98%

Ireland (EI)
National final energy consumption: 13 037
Household total energy consumption: 3 060
Household electricity consumption: 695
Lighting part of hh electricity: 125 = 18%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 4.08%

Italy (IT)
National final energy consumption: 130 654
Household total energy consumption: 29 919
Household electricity consumption: 5 816
Lighting part of hh electricity: 698 =12%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 2.33%

Latvia (LV)
National final energy consumption: 4 201
Household total energy consumption: 1 492
Household electricity consumption: 149
Lighting part of hh electricity: 42 = 28%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 2.81%

Lithuania (LT)
National final energy consumption: 4 722
Household total energy consumption: 1 429
Household electricity consumption: 202
Lighting part of hh electricity: 61 = 30%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 4.27

Luxembourg (LU)
National final energy consumption: 4 398
Household total energy consumption: 610
Household electricity consumption: 71
Lighting part of hh electricity: 9 = 13%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 1.48%

Malta (MT)
National final energy consumption: 478
Household total energy consumption: 81
Household electricity consumption: 57
Lighting part of hh electricity: 14 = 25%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 17.28%

Netherlands (NL)
National final energy consumption: 50 835
Household total energy consumption: 10 013
Household electricity consumption: 2 135
Lighting part of hh electricity: 342 = 16%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 3.42%

Poland (PL)
National final energy consumption: 60 163
Household total energy consumption: 19 178
Household electricity consumption: 2 237
Lighting part of hh electricity: 626 = 28%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 3.26%

Portugal (PT)
National final energy consumption: 18 544
Household total energy consumption: 3 201
Household electricity consumption: 1 153
Lighting part of hh electricity: 162 = 14.04%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 5.06%

Romania (RO)
National final energy consumption: 24 706
Household total energy consumption: 7 839
Household electricity consumption: 860
Lighting part of hh electricity: 302 = 35.18%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 3.85%

Slovakia (SI)
National final energy consumption: 10 680
Household total energy consumption: 2 315
Household electricity consumption: 394
Lighting part of hh electricity: 33 = 8.3%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 1.43%

Slovenia (SK)
National final energy consumption: 4 945
Household total energy consumption: 1 158
Household electricity consumption: 263
Lighting part of hh electricity: 38 = 14.3%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 3.38%

Spain (ES)
National final energy consumption: 96 642
Household total energy consumption: 14 753
Household electricity consumption: 5 650
Lighting part of hh electricity: 1 017 = 18%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 5.06%

Sweden (SE)
National final energy consumption: 33 218
Household total energy consumption: 7 003
Household electricity consumption: 3 567
Lighting part of hh electricity: 571 = 16%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 8.16%

UK (UK)
National final energy consumption: 150 565
Household total energy consumption: 42 018
Household electricity consumption: 10 013
Lighting part of hh electricity: 1 602 = 16%
Lighting part of hh total energy = 3.81%

EU-27
EU final energy consumption 2006: 1 176 221 (1000 TOE)
EU total domestic energy consumption: 304 370
EU domestic electricity consumption: 10 013
Lighting part of EU domestic electricity (mean): 1 602 = 10%
Home lighting part of domestic total energy (mean): 2.94%
Home lighting part of EU total energy (mean): 0.76%

Of this 0.76% the preparatory study by the EU Commission's own consultants showed that the share of household incandescent lamps has decreased from 85% in 1995 to 54% 2007. [3] Based on surveys of 500 consumers in 11 countries, the EU-27 average share per household 2007 was estimated at:

• 54% of the lamps incandescent (and decreaseing)
• 18% of the lamps low-voltage halogen (and increasing)
• 5% of the lamps mains-voltage halogen (and increaseing)
• 8% of the lamps linear flourescent
• 15% of the lamps CFL with integrated ballasts

Note that incandescent lamps were expected by the preparatory study to keep decreasing dramatically, even in the "business-as-usual" scenario (= without a ban)! [3]

• We also have the sooner-than-expected introduction of decently functional lower-wattage mercury-free LED-lamps.

And after the intensification of the CFL propaganda, all the energy-saving tips flooding the media and internet these last 2 years, all the freebie campaigns and the climate change threat, it's probably less today, but let's for simplicity's sake say the incandescent lamp share is still as high as 50%.

Half of 10% = 5% of domestic electricity.
Half of 2.94% = 1.47% of total domestic energy use.
Half of 0.76% of = 0.38% of EU total energy consumption.

Of this little fraction, the European Commission hopes to save 65-75% by forcing people to switch to CFLs. This makes:

2.35 - 3.75% of domestic electricity.
0.96 - 1.1% of total domestic energy use.
0.25 - 0.28% of EU total energy consumption.

Using the more realistic figure of CFLs saving closer to 50% (with light deprication, power factor, ballast loss, heat replacement effect, poor quality imports, wrong useage etc. taken into consideration) we get:

Half of 5% = 2.5% of domestic electricity.
Half of 1.47% = 0.74% of total domestic energy use.
Half of 0.38% = 0.19% of EU total energy consumption.

Not exactly close to the 2020 goal, is it?

And not all of the remaining incandescent lamps can be replaced by CFLs. The preparatory study explains why:

"...some customers have a few light points left where they prefer to keep the GLS due to barriers for CFLi as explained in chapter 3 (e.g. requirements to color rendering, sparkling effect etc.) or because of the lamp has little usage such as in cellars, staircases or storage rooms and where full lighting is also needed immediately." [3]

References:

1. EuroStat: Panorama of Energy (2006)
2. Residential Lighting Consumption and Saving Potential in the Enlarged EU
3. Domestic Lighting, Part 1, Chapter 2

IKEA

2009-05-19T09:23:00.005+02:00

A few weeks ago I called IKEA. Since I'd heard rumours about people emptying their shelves of frosted incandescent lamps, I wanted to know which of their stores had refilled their stocks so as not to have to go there in vain when I wanted to fill up my supply of frosted lamps for reading.

- Sorry, none of the stores in your area has any left, said the person at Custromer Service.
- So, when are they getting more lamps?
- They will not be getting any more. This item is an outgoing product.
- What?! But the ban on frosted bulbs does not take effect until September??
- The item is an outgoing product, she repeated, as if that explained everything.
- But this is a standard product that you always sell, it's not like a specific model of a chair or table which one may expect can be replaced by another design from one season to the next?!
- Well, it is still an outgoing product.
- *sigh* I assume you're just taking calls and cannot do anything about this. Can I speak to whoever made this decision, please?
- That department doesn't take calls.
- Why not?
- Too many wanted to talk with them so they don't take calls anymore...

Seems like IKEA Sweden wants a head start on forcing people to buy their own brand CFLs instead (which also happen to be more profitable)...

I wonder how much this shortsighted decision will cost them in lost revenue as customers get ticked off by having their free choice removed prematurely?

Who pays for 'free' CFL handouts?

2009-04-21T14:54:00.014+02:00

OK, now that I've posted the relevant information, time for some regular blogging!

******************************

Lately, there have been world-wide announcements of free CFL givaways and special trade days where you can swap your incandescent bulb for a CFL. The recent Earth Day was one such day when many utilities, organisations and stores gave away free CFLs (though presumably not the highest quality bulbs on the market).

Here are just a few random examples of what seems to be a globally coordinated drive to give away CFLs by giving hesitant customers a free taste in the hope that they'll buy more:

Home Depot Earth Day 1 Million CFL Giveaway (U.S.A)
250,000 Free Light Bulbs Distributed as CUB celebrates anniversary as State's Largest Watchdog Group (Chicago, IL, U.S.A.)
California Utility Company has Comprehensive CFL Plan (California, U.S.A)
State Utility Distributes Free and Subsidized CFLs (Cape Town, South Africa)
Asian Development Bank to Fund Philippines' Energy-Efficient Light Project; $100M Fuel Cost Savings Expected Annually
Maha Vitaran to offer CFL bulbs for free (India)
India Launches Plan to Distribute 400 Million Compact Fluorescent Lights to Households

Or is it that they've become so unpopular by people discovering their many drawbacks that they have to give them away now? ;)

But who pays for all these free bulbs that are given out?

- We are, obviously. Taxpayers & customers. Whether we switch or not.

"To get government credits for green initiatives, local electricity companies are even giving them out free of charge." [1]

But why CFLs of all things? Why not free or subsidised intelligent sensors, dimmer switches and thermostats? Why not free bus, train and subway tickets?

Update 12 Oct: Some utilities even have the nerve to openly bill their customers for the "free" CFLs they've been handing out, and for the electricity these customers won't be using:

Plan to distribute efficient light bulbs lands with a thud when consumers see bill

1. Holdouts for Humble Bulb Defy a Government Phase-Out

5. EU CFL FAQ

2009-03-30T14:10:00.038+02:00

No lighting blog is complete without a CFL FAQ page. In this case it comes from a recently issued EU CFL FAQ defending the decision to phase out incandescent light despite the many problems and drawbacks with CFLs.

It is a very long list of concerns and complaints they have seen necessary to address, so I'll only quote and comment some of the most relevant points here (not necessarily in original order). Surprisingly, EU actually confirms the crucial points I've described in this blog (CFL light loss, misleading conversion charts, poor power factor, heat replacement effect etc) but still defends the CFL.

Compact Fluorescent Lamp issues

EU FAQ Question: "III.3. Is it true that compact fluorescent lamps produce less light than incandescents?
EU FAQ Answer: "Compact fluorescent lamps can produce just as much light as incandescent bulbs. Consumers should check the product packaging to buy lamps of the appropriate power and light output. Currently, exaggerated claims are often made on the packaging about the light output of compact fluorescent lamps (e.g. that a 11-12 Watt compact fluorescent lamp would be the equivalent of a 60 Watt incandescent, which is not true)."

My comment: Correct. And this means that CFLs do not save "up to" 80% energy as is often claimed.

"The regulation will introduce restrictions on equivalence claims made on the product packaging, in order to keep the claims reasonable. Until then, for guaranteed satisfaction, a simplified method could be used to compare wattages when selecting the compact fluorescent lamp, by applying a 1:4 ratio (example: the light output of 15W compact fluorescent lamp is slightly more than the light output from a 60W incandescent). Even with this conversion ratio, compact fluorescent lamps are much more energy efficient than incandescent bulbs."

Correct (just as I've been saying, see Conversion Charts). Good to see EU suddenly having realised this (after the ban was voted through on the premises that CFLs save "up to 80%"). After this insight, I expect to henceforth never again see the "save 80%" or "give 5 times more light" in an EU document.

"Nevertheless, it is highly recommended to consider the light output of the lamps instead of their wattage if you want to compare them. It is this quantity (expressed in lumens on all lamps from 2010) that really describes the performance of a lamp, therefore it allows direct comparisons without a need for conversion. For example, a 15 W compact fluorescent lamp typically provides 799 lumens of light and a 60 W incandescent lamp 710 lumens. See also III.9."

This is good advice and I hope it will become mandatory information on the package so as to make this comparison possible for consumers.

Life Span

"III.4. Is it true that compact fluorescent lamps have a much shorter life time than generally claimed?

"Untrue. There are indeed low quality compact fluorescent lamps that do not reach their normal life time (6000 h), but most respect the claimed values in average domestic use. The regulation introduces requirements on lifetime so that national market surveillance can eliminate free-runners."

Many of the best CFLs have gotten better in this regard, if the right CFL type is used in the right luminaire so they don't get overheated etc. But there are still a lot of CFLs out there which, for various reasons, don't last as long as claimed (see Life Span).

Light Loss

"III.10. Do compact fluorescent lamps lose light as they age?

"It is true that during their long lifetime, compact fluorescent lamps will gradually emit less light than at the beginning (incandescent bulbs lose light too, but because of their short lifetime the loss is less noticeable)."

Manufacturer catalogues do not mention this so I've called and asked. Sylvania claim their incandescent bulbs lose no light, Osram says around 5%, Philips Lighting says theirs may lose 5-10% but that they don't last long enough for this to be noticable.

"At the end of their life, compact fluorescent lamps often lose 30% of their initial light. This is why the regulation requires that when claims are made on the packaging of a compact fluorescent lamp concerning equivalence with an incandescent bulb (see III.3), the light output (and power) required from the compact fluorescent lamp is overstated. This way the user will get initially more light from the compact fluorescent lamp than from the incandescent bulb that is claimed to be equivalent to the compact fluorescent lamp on the packaging."

I'm assuming this means requiring packages to recommend a 1:4 switch instead of 1:5 (as stated under III.3 above). A good start, but since an 11-12W CFL gave less light than an incandescent to start with, even using a 15W is often not quite enough when light loss is taken into consideration. To stay on the brighter side, a 20W CFL may be more appropriate for the European market = 1:3 switch (see Conversion Charts for more details).

"The regulation also introduces a minimum requirement on light output at the end of life of the lamps. Nevertheless, over its life, the light output of the compact fluorescent lamp may decrease below the light output of the "equivalent" incandescent bulb. Most users should not notice the difference, those who do will have the option of replacing the compact fluorescent lamp earlier than its normal end of life."

Which makes its practical lifespan shorter than claimed (the industry uses something called "economical life rate" which differs from actual life rate) and thereby also alleged savings.

"III.5. Is it true that compact fluorescent lamps should not be switched on/off frequently because it shortens their lifetime? For example, does it make sense to install them in a toilet which is used for 5 minutes 10 times a day?

"This functionality is also addressed by the regulation, requiring that compact fluorescent lamps should reach the claimed life time while being switched on/off once for every hour of operation. Where frequent on/off switching is likely, dedicated compact fluorescent lamps that can endure up to 1 million switching cycles"

In other words, this is a problem, and if one wishes to conserve energy by not leaving lights on, one has to buy a specially dedicated (and no doubt extra expensive) CFL that can tolerate a million switches?

Osram, for example, says their Dulux Long Life and Facility are designed to withstand frequent on-off-switching, whereas their standard CFLs need to stay switched on for at least 3 hours at a time and should only be switched on a couple of times a day in order to last 6000 hours, otherwise their lifespan may be drastically shortened! (Which might explain why some CFLs last only a fraction of their promised life for some consumers.)

This does not sound very energy saving since the best way of conserving some of those few % energy that lighting uses, is to turn it off when leaving the room (or use an occupancy sensor that does this automatically). Since most people probably buy the cheaper standard CFLs and are either not informed at all of this limitation, or unwilling/unable to pay extra for CFLs that don't have these restrictions, the practical lifespan of the average CFL can be considered much shorter than advertised, and potential savings will of course dwindle accordingly.

"…or other energy saving light sources insensitive to switching can be used (such as halogen lamps which will also remain available)."

Yes, halogen lamps do not have the many limitations and huge quality variations that CFLs do and would be an excellent alternative in many cases. But most halogen lamps will be phased out too, starting with all frosted halogen lamps in September.

Other CFL Limitations

"III.11. Is it true that compact fluorescent lamps do not work in cold temperatures?

"A standard compact fluorescent lamp will indeed lose a substantial part of its light output in cold temperatures. However, there exist compact fluorescent lamps designed specifically for outdoor use which can withstand cold temperatures without losing performance. Consumers should watch out for this information (required by the regulation for display on the packaging) when purchasing compact fluorescent lamps."

Another detail consumers need to educate themselves on and watch out for. And pay extra for, of course.

"Improved halogen lamps will also remain available and can operate in any ambient temperature."

Yes, those few low-voltage halogens that will still be permitted after the phase-out period. This is one more reason halogen lamps should not be regulated. They don't have the many limitations that CFLs do.

"III.6. Is it true that compact fluorescent lamps cannot be dimmed?
"Untrue, there are compact fluorescent lamps on the market that can be dimmed, and there are dimmers that can dim any compact fluorescent lamp."

Both of which are much more expensive and may yet be harder to find. Besides, dimming a CFL will not save any energy, only make the light even more grey and dull than it already was. Standard CFLs still can't be dimmed at all.

"Consumers should carefully read product information concerning dimmability."

Correct. One more thing consumers have to educate themselves on besides finding out which CFL type a) can't be used with electronic timers, occupancy detectors or ceiling fans; b) won't work or give less light at cold temperatures, c) will give less output and die sooner in closed luminaires, d) will give too few lumens compared to the recommended incandescent equivalent; e) will or won't give the colour temperature desired, besides reading consumer tests to find out which brands and models will be more likely to give as much light as promised and last as long as promised (if used correctly).

This will be a requirement for each of EUs 500 million citizens if they want to get what they think they're paying for, since the only reliable and good quality options will be phased out.

"Improved halogen lamps will also remain available and provide full dimmability in all circumstances."

Only clear halogen retrofit bulbs with infrared coating and integrated low-voltage transformers (hardly on the market yet and even more expensive than standard halogen lamps already are) will be permitted after the phase-out period. As all frosted halogen retrofit lamps, including Halogen Energy Savers, will be banned from September, this doesn't leave consumers a lot of choice when it comes to an incandescent alternative.

"III.7. Do compact fluorescent lamps really take longer to switch on and warm up to full light output than incandescent lamps?

"True. In order to guarantee an acceptable level of service with any compact fluorescent lamp, the regulation introduces minimum requirements on switch-on and warm-up times. Switching on a compact fluorescent lamp shall not take more than 2 seconds, and it should reach 60% of its full light output within one minute."

60% within a minute? But what if one wants 100% immediately? (Like one gets from those incandescent and halogen lamps now being phased out...)

"However, there are now compact fluorescent lamps on the market that come close to incandescent bulbs for these performance parameters from the point of view of the average consumer. If these are features consumers are concerned about, they should look out for the information on the product packaging, where the manufacturers will be required to display warmup-times."

Ah, another vital piece of information the consumer will have to search for! And probably pay extra for. And these still won't reach 100% instantly, since that's not possible with CFL technology.

"III.9. Is it true that compact fluorescent lamps do not always fit in the luminaires housing incandescent lamps?

"Compact fluorescent lamps exist today in many sizes and shapes to replace incandescent bulbs. Where there is indeed too little room for any compact fluorescent lamp to fit in, improved halogen bulbs could be used to replace incandescent bulbs."

Which may be too hot or glaring and are not always the most appropriate option even if they give an equivalent high quality light. And low voltage halogen is often somewhat whiter.

Power Factor

"III.16. Compact fluorescent lamps cause losses in the electrical distribution grid due to a poor power factor. Incandescents do not. Is this taken into account when assessing their energy efficiency?

"According to the technical study ordered by the Commission to prepare for the regulation on household lamps (http://www.eup4light.net/) even if we assume they have a poor power factor, compact fluorescent lamps are overall much more energy efficient than incandescents."

Translation: "Yes, we have been made aware of this uncomfortable fact, but since CFLs still save something, it doesn't matter if it's 50% rather than 80%."

"Besides, the regulation on household lamps requires a minimum power factor for compact fluorescent lamp lamps."

So all lamps with below PF 0.85 will be banned from September...? Or just a similar recommendation as for Energy Star: a minimum of 0.5 in order for manufacturers to get the EU energy label by claiming to pass this generous requirement? Which means that such a CFL will use about twice as much energy as is marked with (see Power Factor).

Heat Replacement Effect

"III.17. Incandescent bulbs produce a lot of heat, compact fluorescent lamps much less. When compact fluorescent lamps replace incandescent bulbs in a room, does the increased heating need in the room negate the energy saving through the lower consumption of lighting?

Here we get all the standard counter-arguments (see Heat Replacement Effect) listed together:

"Though it is accepted that incandescent lamps emit heat, incandescent bulbs are not an efficient way to regulate indoor temperature."

And I repeat that people don't use lights to regulate indoor temperature but to see what they're doing.

"The location on the ceiling is inefficient"

Invalid argument since heat circulates and most homes have lights lower down in the room.

"electrical heating itself is inefficient compared to other forms of heating (e.g. gas or heat pumps),

Correct, but see above about people using lamps for seeing, not for heating.

"the heating is unnecessary in the summer period and may even result in increased cooling needs, and not all rooms needing lighting need also heating. Because of all these factors, heat from lighting is considered as energy loss rather than useful energy."

In the summer it is usually lighter so less artificial light is needed. And studies on the heat replacement effect have taken seasonal variations and other factors into consideration when making their calculations.

"Nevertheless, when it comes to quantifying the improvement potential of the switch from incandescent lamps to compact fluorescent lamps, the UK Market Transformation Programme recommends using correction factors [3], to take into account what they call the "heat replacement effect". But even these factors remove only 20 to 30% of the estimated savings in energy costs and CO2 emissions, meaning that the balance of savings achieved is still substantial both for the consumer and for the environment."

Hm, let's see what the study referred to actually says:

"The magnitude of the heat replacement effect for lights in a typical UK dwelling"

"Comparing cases 2 and 3 shows that for the dwelling simulated in this study, 0.363 MWh/yr of electricity is saved by replacing tungsten lamps with CFLs. Because of this, the annual heat requirement increases by 0.220 MWh/yr. This implies a heat replacement factor of 60.6%. However, an allowance should be made for lighting energy used in external lighting. The factor fin (95%) is therefore applied, leading to a heat replacement factor R of 57.6%.

"In terms of delivered energy savings, assuming a 70% efficient gas heating system provides the extra heat, 100% / 70% = 1.429 times the quantity of missing heat from lights will be required to heat the dwelling to the same level. Using the formula from [1] the delivered energy saving factor is thus 17.7%. In other words, only 17.7% of the gross delivered energy saving will be achieved in practice.

"In terms of fuel costs, replacing tungsten lamps with CFLs reduced electricity consumption by 0.363 MWh/yr and increased space heating consumption by 0.220 MWh/yr. However, since electricity is more expensive than gas (by a factor of about 4 in the UK), the gross cost saving will not be so heavily reduced when including the effect of heat replacement. In this case, 84.4% of the gross cost saving will be achieved.

"Similarly, in terms of carbon savings, because electricity is significantly more carbon intensive than gas in the UK (by a factor of 2.2), the gross carbon saving is not as heavily reduced when converting to a saving net of heat replacement. Simulation cases 2 and 3 suggest 61.4% of the gross carbon saving will be achieved." [emphases added]

Interesting way of focusing on cost and CO2 and conveniently omitting the part about "only 17.7% of the gross energy saving will be achieved in practice". (And in this simulation they have of course calculated with maximum claimed savings for CFLs, as pro-CFL studies always do.)

"The improved retrofit halogen bulbs that will remain available only provide 25-45% energy savings compared to incandescent bulbs (whereas compact fluorescent lamps save up to 80%), which means they still radiate much of the energy they use as heat rather than light."

But the above study just confirmed that this same heat helps keep heating bills down in the UK and cooler climate countries. And CFLs still don't save "up to 80%" - especially not with heat replacement effect taken into consideration!

Light Quality

"III.8. Isn't the shape of compact fluorescent lamps ugly and do they not produce unpleasant light (also in terms of colour rendering, colour temperature and light spectrum)?

"Consumers usually find modern quality CFLs perfectly suitable for everyday tasks and aesthetically pleasing."

No they don't. True that many men don't seem to notice a difference, but then men often have poorer colour vision than women (but better night vision). Most women I've asked or read comments from - and quite a few men too! - do not like fluorescent light or CFLs at all due to the unnatural looking light even from the 'new and improved' top brand lamps. (Yes, this is anecdotal but so is the EU claim to the contrary.)

"There may be some substandard compact fluorescent lamps on the market, but those will be removed through the functionality requirements of the regulation."

But according to recent Swedish consumer tests, over half of the CFLs tested still had a strange colour. And even the most incandescent-mimicking good quality 'warm-white' CFL with double envelope still has a pinkish tinge that might be acceptable in a shaded luminaire but looks distinctly fluorescent and sterile in open luminaires where you see the lamp (or part of it). As this type will be the only frosted retrofit lamp available for open and task luminaires after September, I predict a lot of unhappy customers.

The CRI around 80-83 (medium-good colour rendering) for standard lamps has been the same for decades and will not improve since that means adding more expensive rare elements (which have to be mined out of the ground; not exactly improving the environment).

"Improved halogen lamps will also remain available and produce exactly the same light quality as incandescent bulbs."

Correct about quality, incorrect about availability (see previous comment above).

"Overall, the perception of shape and light quality is quite subjective, however there are parameters that can be measured. On some of these parameters, CFLs are actually doing better than incandescent bulbs and halogens."

This is a direct lie. Not even manufacturers' own catalogues or anyone in the lighting business claim such a thing. CRI values (= colour rendering properties) are always highest for incandescent & halogen light, and spectral power distribution charts show why this is so (see Light Quality).

"Modern CFLs come in a variety of sizes and shapes approaching that of incandescent bulbs. The outer lamp envelope that hides the small twisted lighting tubes has become commonplace, and makes CFLs resemble frosted (non-transparent) incandescent bulbs in appearance."

Correct, except the resemblence is only in shape, not in light quality. Though due to the bigger base they don't always fit in existing luminaires, especially not the candle type CFLs. And the smaller/lower watt CFLs often have poorer performance and durability.

Colour rendering

"In order to ensure proper colour rendering (ability to reproduce the colours of the objects lit) for CFLs, the draft regulation introduces a minimum requirement on this product parameter."

Which I assume is the same as the current standard of CRI 80-83?

Unless the minimum is set at CRI 95-97 (which improves colour rendition but reduces light output by about 30% and makes it many times more expensive due to use of more phosphors), and poorer quality CFLs will be banned, this sentence only means that EU deems medium-quality light in exchange for top-quality incandescent light an acceptable lower standard for EU citizens.

Unfortunately, the lighting industry have created a lighting standard where CRI around 80 is called "good" when in reality it's only mediocre. Anyone who has bought a fabric or chosen paint or wallpaper under standard fluorescent lighting in a shop, only to later find it a different shade than they thought they bought, will know the importance of perfect colour rendering - like you get from natural daylight and from incandescent light.

Colour temperature

"CFLs can be produced with different colour temperatures (warm/cold) depending on consumer needs, whereas incandescent lamps can only provide warm white light."

As stated earlier, special incandescent and halogen lamps come in different colours too, and LEDs come in even more colour varieties, so this feature is not unique to CFLs.

"The draft regulation requires the indication of colour temperature on the lamp's packaging, so consumers should watch out for this information."

Good. But colour temperature for non-glowing light sources is only an approximation when compared to a blackbody radiating light source such as an incandescent lamp. It may or may not look like real daylight or incandescent light, depending on the quality of the CFL and relative success in mimicking the real thing. All too often it does not look quite like the original.

Light spectrum

"The light spectrum of incandescent bulbs resembles that of natural daylight in that it is a continuous curve with no abrupt changes across the spectrum of colours. On the other hand, natural daylight is as strong at the blue and ultraviolet wavelengths as at the yellow and red wavelengths, whereas light from incandescent bulbs has very little blue component and an extremely high proportion of red and infrared component (therefore their light is very yellow and most of it is emitted as heat)."

Correct. Incandescent light (at wattages normal for indoor use) is like sunlight towards sunset. This warm golden-white light is often preferred for home use and makes people and natural materials look their best. This is why manufacturers have tried to copy it in CFLs (with varying degrees of success) and why people are clearing the shelves to stock up on incandescent lamps. And despite being warm in tone, the incandescent spectrum includes enough blue to make blue colours fully visible - unlike fluorescent light which doesn't let the eye see all wavelengths due to spikes and gaps in the spectrum.

"Compact fluorescent lamps differ from natural daylight in that they do not have a continuous spectrum. They emit a high amount of light at certain wavelengths and almost nothing at adjacent wavelengths."

Correct. Which is what often makes a room look strange, dull and unappealing when lit solely by CFL light.

"However, in terms of the proportion of light emitted within the blue and red wavelength ranges, there are compact fluorescent lamps that are able to reproduce daylight more precisely than incandescent bulbs."

Correct. But 'full-spectrum' daylight CFL is a more expensive specialist product, just like there are Solux halogen daylight lamps which have even higher light quality and colour rendering properties. But these special products have little to do with the standard, reasonably affordable, CFL that people can buy in their local supermarket and which we are discussing as replacements for standard incandescent bulbs.

Economy

"Q: III.12. Aren't compact fluorescent lamps much more expensive than incandescent bulbs?
"Compact fluorescent lamps are actually much cheaper than incandescent bulbs if you consider also lamp life time and costs related to electricity consumption while using the lamps."

The original sales argument repeated once again. Is this a CFL FAQ or a CFL ad?

"During the lifetime of one compact fluorescent lamp you will have used 6-10 incandescent lamps. And the compact fluorescent lamp will consume one fourth / one fifth of the electricity consumed by incandescents, another cost saver."

I thought the "one fifth" argument was not going to be used anymore since it was already established earlier in this document that no CFL saves that much?

"A six-year-life energy-saving bulb would save about €60 during its lifetime (80W incandescent versus 20W compact fluorescent lamp). This is based on an assumption of 3 continuous burning hours per day, for an energy cost of 0,15 €/kWh.

Double envelope and poorer quality CFLs of course save less since they don't give as much light in the beginning and lose more as they age. If one has to replace the CFL sooner due to light loss, that too cuts savings. Same if one gets a CFL that gives up sooner than promised, or is used in the wrong luminaire. One may also be charged extra by one's utility to compensate for poor power factor, and pay extra for the heat loss in cooler climates etc.

So, net savings are often markedly less than promised in these optimistic calculations, especially with a poor quality CFL (it is actually more economic to pay more for a brand CFL, if you don't mind fluorescent light).

If EU should ban every top quality product on the market because there is a poorer quality product that might save the consumer a few euros per year (if used correctly) there would be very few products left. I wonder what would happen if the same policy was applied to the auto industry? (That might actually save the planet but it would probably not be very practical or popular...)

Total Energy Use

"III.13. More materials and energy are needed to produce a compact fluorescent lamp than an incandescent bulb, and it also results in more waste at the end of life. Does this not outweigh the benefits of its energy efficiency?
"According to the technical study ordered by the Commission to prepare for the regulation on household lamps (http://www.eup4light.net/), the impact of energy savings during the use of a compact fluorescent lamp clearly outweigh the environmental impact of its production and its end-of-life. Therefore using them rather than incandescent bulbs reduces the overall energy use and the environmental impact of lighting."

A more exact reference would be desirable. I'm sure they were made by CFL enthusiasts on the premises that CFLs "give 5 x more light"/"save 80% energy". And that they only cover the assembly, not the mining of rare minerals, turning the oil into plastic, or manufacturing and shipping of all the different parts (e.g. like the ballasts which, even for the same brand and lamp type, are made by many different manufacturers from different parts of the world).

Mercury
"III.14. Is it true that because of high energy use at start-up, compact fluorescent lamps have to remain switched on for 45 minutes before they bring any energy saving at all?

"No. The energy use of compact fluorescent lamps in the first 2 to 3 seconds of their operation is slightly higher, but after that their power uptake is stabilised. In practice, they provide energy savings right from the moment they are switched on."

Probably correct, though savings, as we have seen, are not as big as claimed. And many standard CFLs need to be switched-on for at least 15 minutes or more in order to not shorten their life, which makes them unsuitable and uneconomical in places you only visit for a short while, e.g. bathroom, closet etc.

"III.15. Compact fluorescent lamps contain mercury, a hazardous material, incandescent bulbs do not. If more compact fluorescent lamps are used, does it not mean more mercury pollution in the EU?"
"Mercury is present in compact fluorescent lamps in such a small amount that during its lifetime a compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) will have saved more mercury emissions from electricity production in coal power plants (compared to the mercury emissions related to the incandescent bulbs’ electricity need) than is contained in the CFL itself."

The usual flawed PR-argument recycled once more (see Mercury).

"Moreover, CFLs should be recycled according to EU legislation already in place."

Should be does not mean that all will be.But 5 mg x millions of CFLs still adds up to tons of mercury in landfills if not recycled properly. The fact that dental amalgam and old thermometers contain more mercury does not in any way make CFL mercury less of an environmental hazard, only makes it seem as if EU has some vested interest in downplaying the significance of mercury in CFLs.

"Compact fluorescent lamps have been widely used in European homes in the past decade, they will not be introduced by this regulation."

But they will be more or less mandated by banning its most popular and affordable competitors. The whole idea of this ban is to boost CFL sales, whether consumers want them or not, isn't it?

That CFL sales have been permitted for a decade without adequate information and routines for recycling is not exactly a point in favour of the CFL lobby, but a scandal in itself, as who-knows-how-many CFLs have already ended up in landfills?!

"Most office and public buildings, and also most streets have been equipped for the last 50 years with fluorescent and high-intensity discharge lamps containing mercury (often much more than compact fluorescent lamps)."

Correct, but linear FL tubes in offices are used in ceiling luminaires and street HID lamps are placed far above pedestrian level, neither which can be knocked-over or thrown away with household garbage, so there is little health risk to citizens, and businesses & public agencies usually have well-established recycling routines for their burned-out lamps. So the fact that other types of mercury-containing lamps have been used safely in non-residential environments is not as reassuring as it's meant to sound, and has absolutely nothing to do with home lighting or CFLs (which is what is being discussed here).

"The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (2002/96/EC) provides for the collection and recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipments (WEEE), including lighting equipment such as CFLs. The Directive sets out collection requirements for all WEEE, specific treatment requirements and a recycling target for gas discharge lamps (including CFLs). According to the requirements, mercury needs to be removed from the collected lamps through treatment, and their recycling should meet an 80% minimum target. Once consumers learn that they have to take back their burned-out CFLs to collection points just as they do with batteries, the mercury content will be recycled and not released to the environment."
"Member States have to ensure that users of electrical and electronic equipment are given the necessary information about the requirement not to dispose lamps as unsorted municipal waste and to collect such waste separately, as well as about the return and collection system available to them. After the regulation is adopted, the Commission will remind the Member States of the need to reinforce the recycling of CFLs on their territory."

I'm sure some member states already have or will be able to put time, money and effort into informing their citizens and establishing good recycling routines, while other member states may have more pressing matters on their agenda and few funds to finance such operations with.

And even with successful information campaigns and easily accessible recycling facilities, states still can't guarantee that every individual will comply. The only way to ensure no more mercury in landfills is to not allow mercury-containing products on the market if there exists a mercury-free alternative. And we do have such alternatives: incandescent, halogen and LED.

"The Commission also proposed to recast the WEEE Directive on 3 December 2008, so that the collection target for all WEEE is increased and the recycling target for gas discharge lamps is set at the level of 85%. This proposal will now go to co-decision with the Council and the European Parliament."

Good target but target still doesn't mean 85% will be recycled (see Recycling).

"From a life-cycle perspective, the proposed regulation is in any case the most eco-efficient solution. Indeed, according to the technical study ordered by the Commission to prepare for the regulation on household lamps (http://www.eup4light.net/), even in the worst possible case that a CFL goes to the landfill, during its lifetime it will have saved more mercury emissions from electricity production in coal power plants (compared to the mercury emissions related to the incandescent bulbs’ electricity need) than is contained in the CFL itself, so the overall mercury pollution balance will be positive."

Again assuming that:

a) all energy for light bulbs comes from coal, which is not correct (Eurostat says 29% of EU electricity production 2006 come from coal) and type of energy source may vary greatly between countries and regions;

b) CFLs save 80% energy, which they don't (more like 50% for the best, and less for the rest);

c) that reducing up to 1.5% of the c. 3% of domestic energy that is used for lighting will reduce emissions from coal fired power plants better than mandating filtering systems for EU power plants that would deal directly with the coal powered part of the remaining 97%. See http://www.ceolas.net/#li19x

"III.21. Compact fluorescent lamps contain mercury, which is a highly toxic substance. Do compact fluorescent lamps represent a danger to health because of that?"
"Mercury is an important component of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) that plays a key role in their energy efficiency and also other parameters such as lifetime and warm-up times. There are up to 5 milligrams (0,005 grams) of mercury contained in a CFL (compared to 0,5 g in dental amalgam filling or several grams in older thermometers). The 5 mg limit is set in the Restriction on Hazardous Substances Directive (2002/95/EC)."

"The mercury content cannot escape from CFLs, except in the event of accidental breakage of the lighting tubes. In that case less than 5 milligrams of mercury could be released."

Correct. And this is obviously too much, or safety guidelines would be unnecessary:

"The draft Ecodesign regulation requires manufacturers to explain on their websites how consumers should clean debris in case the CFL's tubes accidentally break, and to include on the packaging of each lamp the link to online explanations. Such an explanation is already available on the website of the European Lamp Companies Federation."

Good. Though one wonders how many were broken before these recommendations came up. And why the Commission hasn't issued its own guidelines.

"Buying commonly available CFLs with an outer non-breakable lamp envelope is another way to address the issue of mercury leakage in case of accidental lamp breakage, but the envelope slightly lowers (about 10%) their efficacy."

This doesn't eliminate the risk but lowers it (and makes the light less glaring and unattractive).

"Consumers who would particularly worry about mercury can choose alternative technologies such as improved halogen lamps."

See previous comments about the limited availability of halogen, and non-availability of frosted halogen.

About the incandescent ban

"III.2. By banning incandescent bulbs, are you forcing the use of compact fluorescent lamps? Are they not bad alternatives to incandescent bulbs?

"The best compact fluorescent lamps today can offer lighting functionalities approaching and in some respect surpassing that of incandescent bulbs (e.g. higher variety of colour temperatures)."

There are incandescent lamps too that come in 'peach', 'cream', 'daylight' etc. so this is not unique to CFLs. This sonds more like a desperate attempt at finding something good to say about them.

And this 'colour variety' diversion evades the questions, to which the answers are: yes - EU is forcing the use of CFLs, and yes - they are bad alternatives to incandescent bulbs, for all the reasons listed above and below and now confirmed by this very EU FAQ.

"In order to guarantee a minimum quality for compact fluorescent lamps on the market, the regulation also establishes requirements on product functionality (lifetime, warmup times, colour rendering etc.)."

This still won't make them start immediately or have perfect colour rendering like incandescent and halogen lamps since this is not possible with flourescent light technology.

Nor will retailers be prohibited from importing and selling poor quality CFLs. EU will just give a 'quality stamp' to those CFLs that are reasonably decent, meaning very little the regulations is like EnergyStar, which is based merely on manufacturer claims or tested on bulbs chosen by the manufacturer.

"The ENERGY STAR labeling program for residential lighting products merely requires data submission and certification by the product manufacturers. Product samples tested are “self-picked” by the manufacturer. No follow-up testing on actual products purchased from retail is required by ENERGY STAR. In addition, no centralized data review or challenge process exists within the lighting industry relative to the performance of residential ENERGY STAR lighting products."
U.S. DoE Eergy Star Lighting Verification Program

"Requirements for adequate information provision on the product functionalities will also ensure that consumers can make informed choices. See the other questions in section III for the details."

Similar but not the same. The main similarity is the frosted outer bulb on CFLs that have a double envelope. But fluorescent light doesn't radiate and glow like incandescent light does, as it's a 'dead' chemical light.

"but different light from clear (transparent) lamps which are bright point light sources. In order for such lamps to continue to exist, the regulation allows transparent improved (class C according to the lamp energy label) halogen bulbs on the market."

Correct. They may do to replace some clear bulbs, but are more glaring and may not be a suitable as replacement for frosted bulbs.

"Improved halogen bulbs provide exactly the same type and quality of light as incandescent bulbs or conventional halogens, they come in the same shapes and appearance, and fit into all existing luminaires. They start and provide their full light output as soon as they are switched on, and they are insensitive to frequent switching. These lamps can be useful also for consumers who are looking for alternatives to compact fluorescent lamps for other reasons (sensitivity to light or aesthetic considerations such as need for small lamps in decorative luminaires). Improved halogen bulbs for luminaires using incandescent bulbs are already available on the market, however their use is not yet widespread. Large manufacturers have them in their product portfolio (look for lamps such as 'HaloLux Classic ES', 'EcoClassic30' or 'MasterClassic EcoBoost')."

Correct. But the clear ones will only be permitted for a few more years. And the frosted Halogen Energy Savers will be forced off the market now in September - exactly one year after their market introduction! If this incandescent ban is not revoked, frosted retrofit Halogen Energy Savers must still be permitted indefinitely, or until an even better alternative has been created.

Frosted bulbs don't give less light than clear bulbs so there is no reason whatsoever to ban frosted other than to force people to buy CFLs against their will. Forcing consumers to buy a mercury-containing product they don't want - because it is an inferior quality product - is clearly a gross violation of personal freedom!

"I.8. People are likely to stock up incandescent bulbs when they hear about the regulation. Does this not weaken the impact of the measure?

"Communication to consumers about available equivalent alternatives to incandescent bulbs (such as improved halogen bulbs) could help prevent much of the stocking of bulbs. Consumers will realise in the end that the alternatives provide substantial savings and have equivalent light quality to incandescents. They might decide not to use their old energy-wasting bulbs, or to install them only in rarely used places such as cellars. Moreover, the estimate of 15 Mt CO2 savings was calculated for the year 2020, by then any delaying effect of "hamstering" will have disappeared."

That's 11 years away! By that time we need to have done some something about the real problems instead of hunting droplets in the energy ocean... like that less than 1% used for home lighting in Europe.

"I.9. Is it not disproportionate to ban incandescent bulbs from the market? Would it not be better to make use of other measures to achieve the switch (such as voluntary restrictions as in the UK, information to the public or taxation)?"

"The draft regulation introducing minimum efficiency requirements (rather than a voluntary approach) is in line with the principle of proportionality. There is clearly a market failure in moving to the alternatives providing the least life cycle cost to the consumers. Since 1998, household lamps have to indicate their energy efficiency on the packaging, thanks to implementing measure 98/11/EC of the Energy Labelling Directive (92/75/EEC)."

Which resulted in the CFL Quality Charter, right? The "Quality Charter" that requires only 660 (initial) lumen from a CFL to replace a 700 lumen standard 60W incandescent lamp, and permit labels that recommend an erroneous 1:5 switch (adressed earlier in III.3)? This is what the European Commission has said about it:

"The CFL Quality Charter is a voluntary scheme. It is opened to lamp manufacturers, CFLs importers and retailers willing to comply with the Charter rules and market in the European Union CFLs that meet the Charter requirements." [emphasis added]

Residential Lighting Consumption and Saving Potential in the Enlarged EU

Yet even such EU-sanctioned exaggerations from manufacturers, utilities and governmental agencies alike, obviously hasn't impressed consumers enough to replace all their top quality incandescent lamps with inferior quality CFL. Perhaps because they would rather save on something else than ruining their home atmosphere by compromising on something as essential as light quality?

"In spite of the clear indications provided on the packaging and campaigns in many Member States, consumers have failed to direct their choices to the more efficient lamps offering equivalent service, and have been largely sticking to incandescent bulbs. This is due to the fact that the purchase price difference between incandescent bulbs and more efficient alternatives constitutes a psychological barrier, even if the higher initial investment pays off within a year and brings substantial (but much less visible) savings over the life cycle. Another deterring factor has been the sometimes poor quality of the so-called economic lamps placed on the market without being subject to quality requirements. This market failure can only be tackled with mandatory requirements on the efficiency level of all household lamps placed on the market in the EU."

What? Manufacturers fail to produce a decent enough alternative and it is considered a "market failing" that people don't like the inferior product and refuse to replace all of their lamps, despite such an unprecedented global PR-campaign from governmental agencies, utilities and environmental organizations, including free giveaways, subsidies, events, commercials, articles, brochures - and most people nowadays really wanting to be green - so this has to be tackled with "mandatory requirements"? Doesn't that go against the very idea of the free market and consumer choice?

"This also serves the interests of the internal market, as voluntary restrictions or taxes introduced in certain Member States or by some retailer groups in Europe would create barriers to the free movement of goods. They would have different efficiency limits and timing of the restrictions. In addition, for taxation to be an effective deterrant, it should multiply by 10 the price of incandescent bulbs."

If the EU can legislate about a universal bulb ban, they can just as easily mandate a lower VAT for A-rated energy products and higher for E-rated products. Even a small price increase may inspire those who don't mind compromising on quality to buy alternative products. Especially when LEDs get affordable enough.

"Still the main point is that efficient lighting as provided for in the draft regulation is a way to save energy, to limit CO2 emissions and to help consumers save money without loss of functionality."

As we have seen above, the CFL doesn't save as much as claimed of either and functionality is lost for all those who for various reasons need top quality incandescent light and cannot tolerate CFL light (see Health & Wellbeing).

As this is not in accordance with the draft regulation and the decision seems to have been taken on the false premises that CFLs save "up to" 80% energy and lighting constituting 20% of home energy use when it is only around 3%, this should be enough grounds to revoke the ban and just keep educating people on energy saving measures while subsidising measures that can make a real difference, which is switching to alternative fuels/methods for space heating & cooling, electricity production and transport.

4. Summary - Lamp Type Pros & Cons

2009-03-30T00:54:00.029+02:00

Comparison between different lamp types:

I. INCANDESCENT LAMPS

Models:
* Standard A-bulbs and T-bulbs
* Decorative (globe, flame, tinted etc)
* Reflector & PAR

Advantages:
+ Bright point light source
+ Good quality and performance
+ Natural golden-white light
+ Continuous spectrum
+ Highest colour rendering (CRI 100)
+ Lights up immediately
+ Can be used at both freezing and hot temperatures
+ Full compatibility with existing luminaires
+ Fully dimmable on any dimmer
+ Light gets warmer and more candle-like when dimmed
+ Highest Power Factor (1.0)
+ Contains no mercury (and no lead solder after 2006)
+ Easy to produce, use and recycle
+ Low purchase price

Disadvantages:
- More heat than light
- Short lifetime, 1000 hours (Long Life lamps 2500-7500 hrs, at reduction in output)
- Sensitive to voltage fluctuations
- Sensitive to vibrations (except Rough Service bulbs)

II. HALOGEN LAMPS

Models:
* Low voltage halogen minibulbs for spotlights
* Halogen minitubes for floodlights
* Halogen retrofit lamps with outer bulb and scew base
* Halogen retrofit reflector and PAR lamps
* Halogen retrofit Energy Saver bulbs & reflector lamps (new)
* Halogen retrofit bulbs with xenon gas filling (new)
* Halogen retrofit bulbs with IR coating and integrated transformers (new)

Advantages:
+ 10-50% more light than incandescent
+ Bright point light source
+ Good quality and performance
+ Continuous spectrum
+ Highest colour rendering (CRI 100)
+ Sunny white light
+ Fully dimmable on any dimmer
+ Gets warmer when dimmed
+ Full compatibility with existing luminaires
+ Light up immediately
+ Work as well in low as in high temperatures
+ Highest Power Factor (1.0)
+ Do not lose output with age
+ Contain no mercury or other toxic chemicals

Disadvantages:
- Low to medium low efficiency
- Risks due to high operating temperature
- Models with clear bulb or tube may be very glaring
- Medium short lifetime (2000 - 3000 hours, some reflector lamps up to 6000 h)

III. COMPACT FLUORESCENT LAMPS (CFLs)

Models:
* Tubes without integrated ballsts
* Retrofit tubes with integrated ballasts
* Retrofit spiral tubes
* Retrofit A-bulbs with outer envelope
* Retrofit globes & decorative with outer envelope
* Retrofit reflectorlamps

Advantages:
+ "Up to 80%" (in reality closer to 50%) more light than an incandescent
+ Long lifetime (6 000-15 000 hrs, with diminishing output)
+ Available with warm or cool light

Disadvantages:
- No bright point lighting
- Most models still have unnatural colour
- Suboptimal colour rendering (CRI 82-85)
- Naked tubes often glaring
- Relatively long starting and warm up time
- Lower Power Factor (often around 0.5)
- Sensitive to heat; poor function in closed luminaires
- Many have poor performance in cool temperatures
- May be sensitive to moisture
- May be sensitive to rapid on-off switching
- Often not dimmable (those that are often expensive)
- Dimming makes the light cooler/greyer, not warmer
- Too large for some luminaires
- Do perform well in reflector luminaires
- Some require specific burning position
- Higher production, transportation and recycling costs
- Contain small amounts of mercury (2-5 mg)
- Bare tubes may emit a little UV

IV. LIGHT EMITTING DIODES (LEDs)

Models:
* Reflector lamps (diodes stuck in a reflector lamp)
* Retrofit standard bulbs (diodes stuck on a stick and placed in a bulb).
* Decorative (tube lights etc)

Advantages:
+ Good efficacy (high output per watt)
+ Extremely long life (unless overheated)
+ Light up instantly
+ Warm, cool or coloured light
+ Versatile due to very small size
+ Not sensitive to vibrations, power spikes or rapid cycling
+ Not sensitive to cold
+ Give off less heat than other lamps, can be touched
+ Simpler to produce and recycle than CFLs
+ Contain no mercury

Disadvantages:
- Most common as low-watt lamps*
- Give light only in one direction, in narrow beam
- More or less unnatural light colour*
- Unstable colour, warm-white LEDs shift over time
- Mediocre to good colour rendering*
- Sensitive to heat
- Lower Power Factor than incandescent*
- Expensive*

* Under improvement

References:
EU consultants' Technical Briefing (italicised points)
Philips Lighting
OSRAM
Havells-Sylvania
GE Lighting
MEGAMAN
Aura Light

3m. CFL Analysis Summary - Actual Savings

2009-03-30T00:52:00.009+02:00

With all the factors below added together, it should be more than obvious that CFLs a) don't save as much energy as claimed; b) don't give the same quality light as incandescent and halogen lamps; c) cannot be used in any light fitting (luminaires); and d) are not as environmentally friendly and safe as previously assumed.

Before dismissing these statements out of hand, please just take the time to read the referenced facts presented below. Then do the math yourself.

1. As shown under Conversion Charts, a good quality 11W CFL gives about as much light as a 40W incandescent bulb when real lumen output and expected light loss is taken into consideration.

2. As shown under Power Factor, a typical 11W CFL really uses an equivalent of 20 watts of energy when power factor and ballast use are added to the calculation.

3. As shown under Luminaire Limitations, when used in the wrong luminaire, at too high or too low temperature etc., output and/or life rate decreases further, though it's difficult to give an exact number as this may vary so much with circumstances, e.g. 50% less light when used in recessed downlights and 1-89% or a mean of 40% outdoors at minus 10 degrees C. (So, either get the exact right info on which luminaire each CFL is appropriate for, or subtract some more from potential savings.)

4. As shown under Efficacy, poor quality CFLs will also give less light right from the start and/or lose more and sooner, so subtract 15-65% of estimated savings if you got one of those bargain CFLs at an outlet store and find that it doesn't seem as bright as it should be or last as long as promised.

5. As shown under Heat Replacement Effect, if you live in a cooler climate zone and use CFLs indoors, the excess heat may or may not, depending on your heating system, lower heating bills but at least make the room warmer. Cut the savings number in half if you've got electric radiators with thermostats, less if you have water radiators or heat pump. If you live in a warm zone and use air conditioning, savings increase.

6. As shown under Production Energy Use, this is not even including the extra energy used for production of CFLs, shipping from the Far East, transportation to recycling facilities, and safe recycling of the mercury. Including these in the calculation, Gad Giladi D.E.S.A., M.F.A. FPLDA, in his calculation makes a rough estimate of a 1.1 or 1.3 total less energy comsumption of the CFL.

Even if we stop after the first 2 points and assume for the sake of simplicity that the rest is not applicable in an ideal case, we still only save half of the roughly 4% (= 2%) of domestic energy used for home lighting, and less if we bring in more of the above factors.

Also, as mentioned under Energy Statistics, only around 50% of lamps in EU homes are still incandescent, so cut the 2 in half again = 1%. (or about 0.25% of total EU energy consumption).

Is it really worth sacrificing both Light Quality in our homes, the Health & Wellbeing of some groups, plus risking massive a increase in Mercury pollution due to suboptimal recycling rate, when such small savings can easily be achieved by installing light sensors, dimmers, timers, remote controls or intelligent IR-sensor light switches like the Watt-Stopper, turning down heat one or two degrees, using fewer electric appliances, or simply turning lights off when not in use?

3l. CFL Analysis - Efficacy

2009-03-30T00:46:00.012+02:00

Though CFLs may give a little more light (lumen) per watt than incandescent lamps - a normal quality-quantity trade-off - the "5 times more" is only a nominal value for some of the best, top brand, bare tube 'single-envelope' CFTs & CFLs:

a) in the beginning;
b) in optimal burning position, at optimal temperature & humidity, in optimal luminaire;
c) if they have a good power factor;
d) if the heat replacement effect is ignored;
f) if they last as long as promised (without losing too much output towards the end).

"During 2004, the Test Laboratory then a part of the Swedish Consumer Agency (now a part of Swedish Energy Agency) carried out its second ad hoc testing of 20 different CFLs from Osram, GE, Philips, IKEA and Sylvania. The testing authority concluded that there was no correlation between price and performance of the CFLs.

The information on packaging was often deficient in terms of light quantity. Many models had light output claims that could only be achieved at the optimum operating temperature and/or in some optimum burning position that achieved an optimum internal temperature.

"Many light output claims were outright exaggeration, often by about 15 percent and in a few extreme cases by 25 percent. Furthermore, it was common that the indicated life was inaccurate."[emphasis added] [1]

Other consumer tests have found the poorest performing bulbs in each test to give >15%, 19%, 22%, 33%, 34%, 65% less light than stated, while a few of the best gave slightly more (initially), and most somewhat under stated lumens. [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

Update 29 Aug: A new test by The Telegraph sample 11W CFLs to give only 58% of the light from the claimed equivalent 60W incandescent lamps. [8]

1. Swedish Energy Agency: Compact Fluorescents in Residential Lighting
2. Vielen Sparlampen geht das Licht zu früh aus
3. 14 Sparlampen im Test
4. Råd & Rön, 1/2008
5. Ica-Kuriren, 3/2008
6. Öko-Test Themen-Special: Energiesparlampe versus Glühbirne
7. Die Tester: Energiesparlampen
8. Energy saving light bulbs offer dim future

3k. CFL Analysis - Light Reduction

2009-03-30T00:43:00.011+02:00

Unlike halogen and most incandescent lamps, all fluorescent and HID lamps lose output with age; some more than others, especially covered and reflector CFLs. 10% after 1000 hours for bare tubes and more and as they age, is considered normal in the lighting industry. Though the general public is usually not informed of this fact and will end up with less light than they thought they were buying if they follow the recommended conversion charts.

U.S. Department of Energy tested ENERGY STAR-labeled lamps and found that:

"In Cycle Four, 38% CFL samples failed to meet the requirement of lumen maintenance at 40% rated life, and the majority of covered lamps and reflector lamps failed this requirement with the exception of two models from a certain manufacturer." [1]

In a 2008 Swedish consumer test, Philips, Osram and IKEAs bare tubes had lost a mean of 19% after 6000 hrs, Philips & Osram covered bulbs a mean of 25%, and Ikea bulbs 30-100% (= some didn't last long enough to measure). [2]

And these are some of the best CFLs on the market. Lower end lamps can be expected to lose even more.

1. Energy Star Lighting Verification Program
2. Råd & Rön 1/2008

Update Dec 2: Finally, some journalists are starting to actually read consumer and governmental tests instead of just mindlessly trusting the inflated propaganda from EU, Energy Star and Energy Saving Trust.

Energy saving light bulbs get dimmer over time

Just as I've been saying. Every lighting professional knows this and plans for it. And you don't even have to check consumer tests: it's right there in manufacturer catalogues (if you know what you're looking for) and manufacturers won't deny it if asked; they're just not going to volunteer that information to the public if you don't ask.

3j. CFL Analysis - Lifespan

2009-03-30T00:42:00.013+02:00

According to the few consumer tests that test CFLs for that long, life span seems to have improved over the last decade for the best lamps, though not all CFLs work as long as promised.

* In a German test published January 2009, Osram & Philips CFLs lasted the full 15 500 hours - though with decreasing output - whereas 20% of IKEAs lamps went out before 3000 hrs and most reflector lamps died fairly soon. The tendency was for cheaper lamps to go out sooner. [1]

* Another German test from Dec 2008 gave "less than good results". The first lamps went out after 1500 hours. [2] (However, the exact details were not presented.)

* In a Swiss test from November 2007, Noser, IKEA and Megaman had fallouts before 3000 hrs, whereas the other 11 kept burning. [3]

* In a Swedish test from 2008, various lamp models and wattages from 3 common brands were tested for 6000 hours. 3 of the 4 tested IKEA lamps lasted the 6000 hrs, but one model an average of only 4398 hours. 11 of 14 Osram models (promising 6-15 000 hrs) passed the 6000 hour test, and the remaining 3 (sold as '6000 hrs') lasted 4984 - 5911 hours. 8 of 15 Philips lamps kept burning at 6000 hrs and the other 7 went out between 3189 and 5837 hours, of which one (marked '10 000 hrs') lasted only 4244 hrs and 4 of 8 sold as '8000 hrs' lasted only between 5178 and 5837 hours. [4]

And this is when tested in lab conditions with bulbs burning openly without shades, at optimal temperature, burning position etc. In home luminaires with insufficient air flow and real life situations, e.g. when turned on and off often, life rate may in many cases turn out to be significantly shorter.

One of the most common complaints from disgruntled customers is premature failure after only a few hours, days, weeks or years, way short of the life rate stated on the package; sometimes due to poor lamp quality, sometimes from using good lamps in the wrong luminaires so they overheat, or flicking then on-and-off too often.

Example of long list of typical complaints can be found in the comments section of this (substandard) CFL test by Popular Mechanics and here: Compact Flourescent Light Bulbs - Lifespan A recent article also brings attention to this problem:
New York Times: "Do New Bulbs Save Energy if They Don’t Work?"

"A study published in 1998 examined CFL performance with five different operating cycles. It found that when the length of time the lamps were on was reduced from 3 hours to 1 hour, the lamp lasted for 80 percent of its rated life. When reduced to 15 min and 5 min, the lamp lasted for 30 percent and 15 percent, respectively, of its rated life." [5]

Update 8 Sept: A spokesman for the Energy Saving Trust confirms that frequent switching may reduce CFL life: “Regularly flicking a bulb on for a brief moment and then off again is not recommended as it can shorten the lifetime of the bulb." [6]
When CFLs fail prematurely, calculated long-term savings of course go down the drain.

1. Konsumo: Energiesparlampen-Test: - Zweifel beseitigt
2. Öko-test Online: Energiesparlampe versus Glühbirne
3. Arcotronic AG: 14 Sparlampen im Test
4. Råd & Rön: Lågenergilampor, 1/2008
5. Chen W, Davis R, and Ji Y. 1998. “An Investigation of the Effect of Operating Cycles on the Life of Compact Fluorescent Lamps.”
6. Lifespan of energy-saving bulbs reduced by repeated switching

3i. CFL Analysis - Conversion Charts

2009-03-29T20:16:00.006+02:00

European recommendations

In Europe, CFLs are often claimed to give "5 times more light" (or "up to" 5 times more, to cover poorer performing covered, reflector and decorative bulbs). Optimistic calculations on potential savings are almost always made on the nominal initial lumen/watt values of the best performing bare tubes. A typical European equivalence chart may look like this:

These recommendations are, however, quite misleading as those who follow them will get less light than they originally had! Astonishingly, this EU Quality Charter for Fluorescent Lamps accepts lower minimum initial claimed lumen output from an equivalent CFL than what a typical incandescent bulb usually gives (first two columns of this table):

As can be seen in the last two columns (which I've added for comparison) incandescent ("GLS") lamps usually have a higher lumen output than minimum EU requirements for equivalent CFL! [1]

If a typical CFL does not produce as many initial lumens as the lamp it is supposed to be replacing, it cannot possibly be said to give "5 times more light" of incandescent energy use.

Light Reduction

As explained in under Life Span, CFLs give even less light as they age. After 2000 hours, the EU Quality Charter accepts a 12% light loss for bare CFL tubes, 17% for covered CFL bulbs, and 25% for both types at the end of their life.

To illustrate how this works out in lumen output for various wattages, I've used lumen figures from manufacturer catalogues [1, 2, 3] for standard incandescent (GLS) A-lamps and a typical good quality CFL bare tube. In the following columns I've deducted the permitted 12% and light loss after 2000 hours and the actual mean light loss for recently tested CFL tubes of the same brand after 6000 hours [4]:

Here I've deducted the permitted 17% and 25% light loss for double envelope CFL bulbs (a real test showed 15% and 27% for this particular model). [5] In the manufacturer's catalogue, it is sold as "saving 80% light" (= giving "5 times more light" than an incandescent) but as we can see here, it is less than 3½ with light loss included in the calculation.

To get the same lumen output as from an incandescent bulb, and to compensate for the expected reduction in output as the CFL ages plus the poorer light quality, one needs to choose a higher watt CFL than usually recommended (just like professional lighting designers often do when installing new lights, as they are well aware of these factors). This will, however, give a light that may be too bright and glaring in the beginning and too weak and dull towards the end of its life.

Thus, when used in real situations, an Energy Class A-rated, good quality CFL bare tube does not give 5 times more light, but 3-4 for some of the most effective CFLs on the market. Covered CFL bulbs give somewhat less initially and lose more as they age (a mean of 25% loss for Philips and Osram bulbs, and 30-100% for IKEA bulbs in 2008 test). [4]

1. Philips Lighting
2. OSRAM
3. Hawells-Sylvania
4. Råd & Rön 1/2008
5. Råd & Rön 7/01

North American recommendations

U.S. and Canadian ENERGY STAR requirements stay more reasonable and require a minimum initial lumen output that roughly translates to a 3:1 or 4:1 switch. [1, 2]

Again required initial lumen output is slightly less than incandescent output (at 120V incandescent lamps give more light) and light loss is not taken into account, despite General Electric being more open and giving mean lumen values in their online catalogues.

As can be seen in the above example, a fair switch is closer to 3 than 4 for the most effective bare tubes, and of course less for covered bulbs, globes, reflectors and decorative bulbs. Yet on the same page, it is still claimed that "ENERGY STAR qualified bulbs use about 75 percent less energy than standard incandescent bulbs."

1. U.S. ENERGY STAR
2. Canadian ENERGY STAR
3. GE Lighting

Summary

Based on manufacturer figures for initial lumens, with light reduction included, the best tubes give only 3-4 times more light in Europe and around 3 in the U.S.A and Canada. Less for covered, reflector & decorative CFLs, for CFLs used in the wrong luminaires, and for poorer quality CFLs of all types.

Consumers therefore need to be advised to choose a higher watt CFL than recommended to get as much light as from the original bulb and to compensate for the eventual light degradation and poorer quality of the CFL replacement. And the EU standardisation directive needs to be adjusted to reflect reality.

3h. CFL Analysis - Heat Replacement Effect

2009-03-29T20:12:00.014+02:00

An incandescent bulb produces about 5% light and 95% heat. CFLs are said to produce 25% light and 75% heat. It is this little difference which constitutes the foundation for all other figures and calculations.

However, as shown above, the best bare CFL tubes only give about 3-4 times more light, while many CFLs on the market give less light, and proportionally more heat.

In cooler climates such as in North Europe or Canada, where it is usually cold and dark at the same time, the "excess" heat from lamps naturally adds to indoor heat and is thereby not necessarily wasted, even if not all of the extra heat affects thermostats enough to lower heating bills or is produced during the heating season.

* A (pro-CFL) study by the Swedish Energy Agency 1998 showed varying results depending on type of house, heating system, thermostat efficiency, season, latitude, amount of direct sunlight etc. [1] "Very roughly [with seasonal variations included] one may expect a net saving of 50% of the lighting savings in a house heated by electricity." [2]

* According to a British 2003 study, about 60% of the energy from lighting throughout the year in a typical British house turns into useful heat [3] (as 60% of the energy lightbulbs consume heats the building they are in so heating needs increase accordingly) with CFLs saving only 20%. In a follow-up study using thermal simulation software, researchers conclude:

"The findings from this study confirm the earlier conclusions that the HRE is a significant factor and therefore one that needs to be taken into account to obtain realistic predictions of the savings from reducing energy consumption by lights and appliances within buildings.

"In a typical UK house, the cost saving from installing low energy lighting, if the HRE is ignored, will be overestimated by about 19% and the carbon saving by about 67%. It would be reasonable to expect a similar level of overestimation when looking at the potential savings for a large group of dwellings, rather than an individual typical house. Failure to recognise this when performing calculations could lead to wrong conclusions being drawn and, potentially, to wrong decisions being made. [emphases added][4]

* Recent Canadian studies suggests that actual savings of potential savings depends on season and what type of energy you use for electricity. In some regions it may even be counter-prodcuctive. [5, 6, 7]

"Physics department head Peter Blunden found using CFLs in Winnipeg could cut energy consumption by 67 per cent, "but that's not the whole story," he said. "The issue is all the heat that's thrown off by the incandescents." Blunden said factoring in heating and cooling changes, Winnipeggers would end up with energy and cash savings of 17 per cent, similar to Manitoba Hydro's findings. Those who use air conditioners would see savings of around 24 per cent, he said, while cash savings will be a little higher for people who heat with gas instead of electricity."

Blunden pointed out that lights make up a tiny portion of a home's energy needs, just three per cent on average. 'We're really talking about a very small slice of the energy pie,' he said." [emphases added] [7]

* Dr Peter Thornes explains the heating benefit in more detail here: A Heat Benefit and makes the astute observation that it's funny how the excess heat from lighting seems to be considered a highly relevant factor when it comes to space cooling when it's too hot, but not when it comes to space heating when it's too cold, although both are two sides of the same coin. [8]

Debunking attempts:
- Faced with these annoying facts, whenever the heat replacement effect is mentioned, CFL proponents have been trained to automatically retort that "incandescent lamps are inefficient to heat houses with" but this argument rather falls on its own ridiculousness as I'm sure no one would dream of turning on a light bulb just to create heat! Lamps are obviously used for lighting houses with and the extra heat is just an added bonus.
- Another early argument was that the light bulbs "have to be placed under windows" in order to have the same heating effect as radiators in reducing cold draft. But why on earth would one place a light bulb under a window? If drafty, houses usually have a radiator there... No one has claimed light bulbs can replace radiators, only complement and decrease the need of some of the heat they give off (a very tiny portion at that).
- With increasing desperation, critics now claim that the heat "only stays near the ceiling" but this is not true either as heat circulates, and most people use floor-, table and desk luminaires besides ceiling- and wall fixtures.
Getting a little extra heat close to where one is sitting is usually an immediate benefit whether themostats register it or not - except during hottest season when it may be a nuisance instead (not a huge problem here in Sweden where the slightly-too-hot season usually lasts about 2-6 weeks and coincides with the little-need-for-light-since-the-friggin'-sun-never-sets season).
The warmer the climate you live in, the less of a benefit and the more of a problem incandescent heat will be, of course, and it so happens that warm incandescent light is most popular in the cold and dark climate zones and decreasingly popular the closer to the equator you get. Perhaps there is a natural reason for this? Seems like consumers are alredy intuitively drawn to the type of light that is most appropriate for their particular climate, so why regulate with a one-size-fits-all solution that will be an ill fit for many?

1. Studie över spillvärme från hembelysning, Enheten för Energiteknik, 1998
2. Fyra frågor om Lågenergilampor, Energimyndigheten (STEM), 1999 (Swedish study)
3. Market Transformation Programme: The Heat Replacement Effect
4. Thermal modelling of the heat replacement effect and its implication for energy saving programmes (UK study)
5. Benchmarking of energy savings associated with energy efficient lighting in houses (Canadian study)
6. "Switching off incandescents a no-brainer?"
7. "Compact bulbs not as green as once thought"
8. A Heat Benefit

Summary

* Lighting only uses around 3% of a household's total energy consumption.
* Used indoors in cooler climates during the heating season, only a part of nominal savings from switching to CFLs will be real savings, due to increased need for space heating to make up for the heat no longer produced by light bulbs.
* How much depends on many factors such as length of heating season in one's particular climate zone, house type, insulation, type of energy used in ones region or utility, energy system (e.g. gas, heat pump, electric radiators, water radiators), presence of indoor thermostats and thermostat sensitivity - though nothing stops the home owner from turning down the heat manually if not sensitive enough, and enjoying both the warm light and little extra heat from incandescent and halogen lamps instead (if one needs the light anyway).
* Only in warm climate zones and seasons which require extra cooling do CFLs potentially save what they are claimed to save.

3g. CFL Analysis - Power Factor

2009-03-29T20:07:00.010+02:00

CFL Power Factor may vary from below 0.5 to over 0.9 depending on type of integrated ballasts (traditional magnetic or electronic high-frequency), and also depending on ballast manufacturer and quality of ballast.

The Lighting Research Cente: Power Quality, which includes tables & graphic illustrations of how CFLs, computers and other non-heating appliances distort power supply harmonics, explaines the difference between incandescent (incl. halogen) and fluorescent (including CFL) lamp effect on the power system:

"Incandescent lamps, toasters and other heating devices usually have a power factor of unity = 1. (...) Resistive loads such as incandescent lamps actually reduce voltage harmonics."

"Poor power quality can damage the distribution system and devices operating on the system. (...) High frequency electronic ballasts operate at frequencies ranging from 20 to 60 kilohertz (kHz). The harmonics produced by these ballsts are correspondingly high frequencies and can interfere with some communication equipment including radios, intercoms, and cordless phones. Devices that use power-line carrier signals, such as synchronised clocks and control modules for building energy management systems may also experience problems if harmonics exist at frequencies close to the carrier signal." [1]

However, according to a study at the Vienna University of Technology (cited by the Swedish Energy Agency ), distortions may vary with the actual situation and depend on the CFL in relation to other appliances and other CLFs, e.g. distortions may decrease if CFLs are of different brands, but increase if they are of the same brand. [2]

But this is not the main issue. As demonstrated on this site CFLs Real Power Used, CFLs with poor power factor may use up to twice as much energy as claimed! [3] http://savethebulb.org/cfl-real-power-used
Looking for a second opinion on this astonishing revelation, I made a few calls.

- According to a representative at Swedish Osram, an 11W CFL may in fact use around 18W! The integrated ballasts also use about 2W.

- The Swedish Energy Agency says this sounds about right. That a 15W CFL may have a PF around 0.5 and a VA of 30.

- Vattenfall, one of Europe's biggest energy suppliers, said they are well aware of the difference between active and reactive effect and that they bill larger customers for their VA, whereas smaller customers are only billed for the active effect (= watts used). But to compensate for reactive effect from home electronics and CFLs with poor power factor, a generalised extra fee is included in the standard price per kWh! When I asked what will happen if more people start using significantly more CFLs, the reply was that utilities will have to compensate by making this extra hidden fee higher! This, of course, is nothing customers are informed about (unless one asks, and knows what to ask).

To get a Canadian EnergyStar label "an average of 10 samples tested must be greater than 0.5" - which is not overly reassuring as it needs to be at least over 0.85 in order to not create distortions and tax the energy supply with more than the watts it is marked with.

Technical Editor Margery Conner of EDN also found confirmation of CFLs poor power factor (0.57 in her own CFL, and 0.45-0.50 in a Luminaire Testing Laboratory test) and wanted to know what EnergyStar plans to do about it:

"I emailed Peter Banwell of the EnergyStar program and asked if EnergyStar was considering making minimum PF a requirement for Energy Star compliance. He replied, 'We looked at this in detail several years ago and decided against it, though there are a couple of utilities that still support the idea. We may take this up in the future, as the market share grows, but right now it is still in the noise in terms of impacts.'" [4]

1. Lighting Research Cente: Power Quality
2. Fyra frågor om lågenergilampor, Swedish Energy Agency, 1999.
3. CFLs Real Power Used
4. "Utilities suffer from CFL's poor power factor"
See also "The Hidden Costs of CFLs"

Summary:
The suboptimal power factor of many CFLs on the market means that they both use more energy and indirectly cost more for the customer than consumers and environmental organisations alike have been led to believe, e.g. 18W + 2W for the integrated ballast instead of claimed 11W.

3f. CFL Analysis - Life Cycle Assessment

2009-03-29T19:27:00.022+02:00

A CFL with integrated ballast is a complex piece of electronics, made out of glass, steel, aluminium, solder, copper wire, silicon, phosphors, fibreglass, various plastics, ferrites or ceramics, epoxy resins [1] and flame retardants. Different parts (e.g. ballasts) are often manufacturered in different places, sometimes in different countries, and then sent to the main factory for final assembly. See ballast interior here: CFL autopsy

Some have attempted to make "cradle-to-grave" estimates on CFL energy use, mercury emissions etc., so-called Life Cycle Assessments, but this is no easy task and results may vary depending on how many factors are included into the calculation, and what you mean by "cradle" and "grave".

For CFL proponents, "cradle" means when the parts get assembled at the factory, and "grave" means when they're returned to a recycling facility or end up in landfill. For realists, "cradle" means when the mercury, phosphors and rare earths are mined out of the ground and "grave" when the mercury ends up either in a new lamp, or via nature and the food chain, in us. I'm sure no CFL proponent wants to include the costs for brain damaged babies and lowered general health and mental function of future generations through slow mercury poisoning of the entire population.

But even without adding the last to the calculation, realistic assessments like the one done by Klaus Stanjek on behalf of Greenpeace Hamburg, show that CFLs' complicated construction may require 10 to 40 times more energy - and emissions - to produce than it takes to manufacture an incandescent bulb. [2] Even if they outlast 5-10 bulbs, and use less electricity in the use phase, they still seem to require more energy during their whole life cycle.

Compare with how simple it is to manufacture an incandescent bulb:

"It can also be argued that the incandescent bulb is quite environmentally friendly. Unlike higher technology lamps, the simple filament bulb does not require rare earth gases and phosphors, leaches no mercury, and requires no proprietary manufacturing patents. The incandescent light bulb is produced worldwide, and is often a local product, which requires less packaging and less fuel for transport from low-wage factories to high-profit markets."
- Jeff Miller, President-elect IALD, Director Pivotal Lighting [3]

Update 14 September: Before the ban, EU consultants VITO made a very extensive and detailed life cycle assessment attempt, which had the potential of straightening things out. But as far as I can tell, it appears to contain such serious flaws as to make the its final conclusions highly questionable:

1. Using unusual lamp wattages (54W GLS and 13W CFL) for base-cases, both with incorrect lumens for that wattage-class.

2. Putting clear and frosted GLS in separate classes despite the difference in output being virtually non-existent and all other things the same, while the widely varying CFL models (bare, covered, dimmable, outdoor, daylight, improved CRI etc) with their equally varying efficacies, applications and life spans get represented by one (!) class and CFL type only.

3. Incorrect (too short) life span for typical low-voltage halogen lamps, skewing comparison with other lamp types.

4. Overly optimistic estimations of CFL recycling rates ("20%" in all of EU).

5. Like most pro-CFL 'studies', this one does not count the mining process for the mercury and phosphors (stating a "lack of info" on that part of the process). A reader commenting a mercury article online appears to know more:

"To produce purified mercury in a CFL, the extraction process releases about 0.4mg for every milligram produced into the waterways, atmosphere, and soil as waste. This is a well-established worldwide average that includes many processes, both crude and hi-tech. This means that the 4mg in the CFL actually represents 5.6mg of mercury that enters our environment." [4]

6. Making distribution impact estimates on the assumption that all lamps are produced in Europe, while fully aware that most CFLs are produced in Asia:

"The distribution phase contributes more than 5 % of the life cycle impacts for 11 of the 15 environmental impact indicators. Impacts of this phase are the highest for the emission of PAHs (69 %), heavy metals (22 %), volatile organic compounds (VOC) (21 %), and particulate matter to air. This can be explained by the assumption related to transport in trucks from the retailer’s central warehouse to the shop. (...) according to the MEEuP methodology (section 5.3.6, page 96), a mix of means of transport (trucking, rail, sear freight and air freight) with assumptions on distances was used for all base-cases. This assumption could be considered as disadvantageous for lamps mainly produced in Europe (e.g. GLS-F and GLS-C) and advantageous for lamps produced in Asia (e.g. CFLi)." [5] [emphasis added]

7. Not including the energy used to recycle the mercury.

"Collected CFLi’s at end of life are crushed in a closed installation and sieved. The mercury containing fraction is distilated at 600°C to separate the mercury. The pure, metallic mercury is used again by lamp industry." [6]

This process seems more complicated than it sounds, and must require a substantial amount of energy too [7]:

8. Not including all the forced individual driving to remote recycling stations for householders who wish to leave their CFLs for recycling, or to the few retailers who have a recycling program, and then from them to the recycling stations, then transportation from recycling stations to reprocessing factories and from reprocessing factories back to the lamp factories. As Peter Thornes points out, when "the lamp industry" has their CFL production located in China, that's where the mercury has to be shipped back to.

"However, it is not just the energy requiring manufacture (after all, CFLs have longer lifespans, which gives some compensation). It is also the greater emissions from their longer transport from the fewer centra in which CFLs are economical to make (China), and it is also the further CFL transport emissions to recycling plants and the emissions of their reprocessing there, and the further transport of reprocessed parts to different locations.

This means that inter-continental transport between China and North America/Europe can take place twice, since CFL content including mercury may be shipped back to China for reprocessing and new manufacture. Even more significantly, shipping use of bunker oil, the worst CO2 emitting type of oil, greatly increases the emissions involved (more). [8]

Sounds like an awful lot of driving, shipping, processing and polluting, doesn't it?

1. Should There Be a Ban on Incandescent Lamps?
2. "Energy Wasting Lamp" by Klaus Stanjek
3. "What will be the fate of the incandescent lamp?" Pt1
4. Article comment by "lees"
5. Domestic lighting study, Part 1, Chapter 5 (pdf)
6. Domestic lighting study, Part 1, Chapter 4 (pdf)
7. Technical guidelines on the environmentally sound management of mercury wastes (pdf)
8. New Electric Politics: Life Cycle

3e. CFL Analysis - Lamp & Luminaire Limitations

2009-03-29T19:15:00.007+02:00

Unlike incandescent lamps which fit and work in practically any traditional indoor or outdoor luminaire (light fitting) and performs as well in the freezer or in the oven as in room temperature, CFLs come in so many varieties - each of which has its specific limitations, besides the widely varying quality and colour range - that it can be difficult to impossible for the average consumer to get the right CFL in the right luminaire without guidance from a professional expert in a lamp shop.

Stricter requirements for such information on the package may come soon but this still requires a more alert customer who knows in advance exactly for which luminaire the CFL is intended and who has the time to run around different stores to find just the right CFL for this application.

Grabbing just any CFL at the supermarket is a real gamble. Using a CFL in the wrong luminaire may cause them to give less light (and more heat), last only a fraction of the rated life, or malfunction immediately. Here are some examples:

- Unless specifically designed for such applications, temperatures over 50 degrees Celsius will also drastically reduce output and life rate in most CFLs. Many CFLs therefore cannot be used in closed luminaires or in downlights as they get overheated and soon fail. [1] Some leading manufacturers have created special reflector lamps for recessed downlights.

- Unless specifically designed for outdoor use, most CFLs light up very slowly - if at all - and don't give much light in cold temperatures.

- Some CFLs may be sensitive to moisture and condensation.

- Some CFLs may still be sensitive to rapid on-off switching, especially cheaper ones, and only 70-75% of Energy Star rated CFLs passed the Rapid Cycle Stress Test. [2]

- Using them with dimmers may kill both the lamp and the dimmer, [3] unless the CFL is specifically designed for dimmers - which makes them more expensive, hard to find, and may not use less electricity, only give an even bleaker light which looks extra unnatural at low light levels since it does not get warmer in colour as an incandescent light source will.

- Most do not work with timers, sensors or ceiling fans.

- Some luminaires are too small to make even the smallest CFL fit.

- Many CFLs are meant to be used in base-up position in order to perform as stated. (In lab tests, CFLs are usually tested in this position, so their performance is likely to appear much better than when used in most home luminaires.) CFLs with specific optimal burning position will not work well in luminaires designed for other burning positions. How many know of this, find this information on the package when they buy a CFL, or know what it means if the information is there?

- Due to the slow start-up time (1-7 minutes in early life for some of the best bulbs produced today in recent consumer test [4]) CFLs with electronic ballasts are not recommended for use in bathrooms, closets and storage spaces as one may have already finished one's business there by the time they reach full output and many CFLs need to be left on for some time before switching off again.

- Bare tubes are more glaring than the CFLs with an extra outer bulb and should only be used in shaded luminaires which are open at the top and bottom.

- Risk of UV-radiation makes bare tubes unsuitable for desk- and reading luminaires, and around children and people with cataracts, lupus and other UV-light sensitivity conditions. [5, 6,]

This leaves very few luminaires and situations where a standard CFL will work as advertised. Possibly only in the garage or kitchen, where many already have pre-installed FL tubes, compact FL tubes (CFTs) or recessed low-voltage halogen.

Tips on where CFLs may be suitable: Using Lights at Home
Another good site for detailed CFL info: Compact Fluorescent Bulb Research

1. The CFL Myth
2. PEARL: Evaluation and Analysis of Residential Lighting
3. Should There Be a Ban on Incandescent Lamps?
4. GP Test: Lågenergilampor
5. Health Protection Agency
6. SCENIHR Report on Light Sensitivity

Summary:
* Incandescent bulbs of common wattages can be bought in bulk and kept in reserve at home for when they're needed, and will fit in practically any luminaire with the same size socket.

* Different CFL models each have their specific limitations & requirements and will only work well and last long within the temperature range, burning position, luminaire type and on-off switching which that particular model is designed for.

* Without professional guidance and knowing in advance which luminaire one intends the CFL for, it can be hard to impossible for customers to get the right CFL in the right luminaire.

3d. CFL Analysis - Mercury

2009-03-29T17:36:00.030+02:00

About mercury from the EU Technical Briefing:

"Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) contain small quantities of mercury and emit ultraviolet light which can, under certain circumstances, have a negative impact on people suffering from diseases accompanied by light sensitivity. However analysis shows that these two factors do not present a risk to the general public in normal use."

But there is an immediate risk to all users, especially children and pregnant women, if lamps are broken and mercury escapes into the air and is inhaled (since mercury vapourises at room temperature). Swedish environmental expert Minna Gillberg says all CFL bulbs should be marked with a skull-&-bones label to increase awareness of toxic risk. [1]
Although the risk of breaking a CFL at home is probably not overwhelmingly huge if people are informed of the risk and take care not to place them in luminaires that are easily knocked over, and the amount of mercury each bulb contains usually is minute and decreasing with age, even small amounts of mercury vapour may be harmful to inhale, especially for children, pregnant women and sensitive people. Therefore various national health protection agencies have issued safety instructions in case of CFL (or mercury thermometer) breakage. [2, 3, 4]

If you're lucky enough to be a U.S. citizen, you can always order a Philips Spill-kit for only $100.00... ;-)

"Offers Customers the tools to handle the clean up of broken mercury containing lamps. The materials may be placed in a sealed plastic bag and sent to EPSI in the standard EPSI-PAK lamp recycle box. Kit includes a pail containing training video, safety data sheets, instructions, guidelines for clean-up, mercury chemical information, gloves, scraper, brush, pan, dust mask, safety goggles, sponge pads, plastic sealable bags and large plastic bags."

The European Commission, however, continues to defend the CFL despite its mercury content, using one of the oldest CFL lobby arguments in the book:

"Indeed the decrease of mercury emissions resulting from energy savings (electricity generation in power plants has its own mercury emissions) outweighs the need for mercury in the lamps."

That someone in the 1990s came up with the idea to blame powerplant emissions on the lightbulb in order to get around the uncomfortable fact that FL and CFL contain mercury, is not as surprising as the fact that so many keep regurgitating this argument without ever stopping to consider the blatant flaws in it!

One eloquent exception is Dr Peter Thornes:

"This is based on North American studies, crucially making various assumptions:

"1. That most power is derived from coal. It is about 1/3 in the UK, for example, 1/5 in Ireland, and of course substantially less (and decreasing) in many countries. As an example, the US Government EPA 2002 5-year comparison diagram, variations of which are often used by ban proponents, assumes all power comes from coal, concluding that in such situations CFLs are better."

"2. That emissions remains at the fixed levels. Power station mercury release has for a long time been treatable by using wet scrubbers (chemical, not human, I hasten to add), in combination with recently cheaper and more effective injection and photochemical techniques."

"If and where power station mercury release is a problem, ecological warriors might want to do something about it, rather than just use it as an excuse to ban light bulbs. In a nutshell:

"1. What comes out of ever decreasing coal power stations chimneys can be dealt with: we know where the problem sources are and we can treat them
with ever increasing efficiency at lower costs.

"2. Compare that with scattered broken lights on all the dump sites, we do
not know where the broken lights are, and we can't do anything about them." [5]

Update June 4: According to EuroStat, the EU share of coal used to produce electricity has decreased from 39% 1991 to 29% 2006, though varying widely between different countries [6].

CFL mercury may also constitute a health hazard if thrown away with household garbage or in glass recycling containers:

"'The problem with the bulbs is that they'll break before they get to the landfill. They'll break in containers, or they'll break in a dumpster or they'll break in the trucks. Workers may be exposed to very high levels of mercury when that happens,' says John Skinner, executive director of the Solid Waste Association of North America, the trade group for the people who handle trash and recycling. Skinner says when bulbs break near homes, they can contaminate the soil." [7]

The EU Technical Briefing continues:

"The impact of both elements can be further reduced by using CFLs with an outer non-breakable lamp envelope."

Unless the lighting industry is willing to add more cost to the CFL by putting a teflon-coated unbreakable glass around all CFLs produced, and EU willing to put an immediate ban on all other CFLs sold, this suggestion is pure fantasy and cannot be used as argument for the breakable CFLs on the market today!

* Also note that there are both automated and non-automated factories in China. In the small, non-automated factories, workers distribute the mercury and phosphors into each CFL by hand! Besides the risk of easily exceeding the specified limits, mercury vapourises at room temperature [8] and Chinese factories are not exactly known for issuing protective gear to factory workers. How 'green' is it to poison Chinese labourers and create more toxic waste?

* Not to mention other developing countries where recycling comes very low down on poor people's list of priorities. India's lighting industry, for example, already uses 56 tons of mercury per year. If they are forced to increase the use of FL/CFL from current 10% to 100%, that will be 560 tons! [9]

This is truly alarming, considering the fact that one teaspoon of mercury is enough to poison a medium-sized lake!

Once you've opened Pandora's box and let the mercury out, there is no way of putting it back in again; it will just keep circulating and climb its way up the food chain. Thus, focus should be on the direct sources of mercury: fluorescent light and fossil fuels. Stop mercury emissions it at the source before its too late!

In my opinion, only FL tubes, CFLs and HID lights used professionally should be exempt from the EU mercury ban, as most factories, offices and shops already have well established routines for recycling tubes and lamps correctly and especially linear fluorescent tubes tend to be returned as they don't fit in standard trash cans. To put such a burden on private individuals - who usually already have enough to worry about without needing the extra hassle of safely disposing burned-out bulbs for recycling - can certainly not be called a wise and responsible decision.

1. Nyhetskanalen: "Expert varnar för lågenergilampor"
2. U.S. NPA: Mercury - Spills, Disposal and Site Cleanup
3. U.K Health Protection Agency: Fact sheet on mercury and CFLs
4. Swedish Chemical Inspection Agency: Kvicksilver i lågenergilampor och lysrör
5. New Electric Politics - Environment
6. Eurostat: Panorama of Energy 2006
7. "CFL Bulbs Have One Hitch: Toxic Mercury"
8. Mercury Waste Solutions
9. "Think before you make the switch to CFL!"