Business Week -
The European Commission is drafting energy-efficiency requirements for lighting that would bar old-style light bulbs.
Europe is seeking to get rid of traditional incandescent light bulbs as part of an overall step to cut greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming - the move could reduce the EU's CO2 emissions by 25 million tonnes a year.
The light bulb, over 100 years old and universally symbolic of "a bright idea," is to be scrapped and replaced by more eco-friendly light bulbs that use far less energy.
The incandescent bulb has changed little since it was developed in the 1870s and produces light by passing electricity through a wire filament. But 95 percent of the energy they produce is wasted in the form of heat.
Environmentalists and lawmakers in the European Parliament, headed by UK green MEP Caroline Lucas, have long advocated an EU-wide ban on the traditional light bulb.
EU governments agreed in March this year to ban it across the bloc and called for the European Commission to draw up proposals on energy efficiency requirements for office and street lighting "to be adopted by 2008" and on incandescent bulbs and other forms of lighting in private homes by 2009.
link
EU Could Ban Incandescent Bulbs
Moderator: Super Moderators
-
Shirleypal
- Pirate
- Posts: 45448
- Joined: 03-06-2003 03:00 AM
Bill to Ban Regular Light Bulbs Introduced in House
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
March 21, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - A Democratic lawmaker has introduced a bill that would ban the sale of traditional incandescent light bulbs - which are less energy-efficient, prompting claims that they contribute to "global warming" - one day after a colleague told a press conference that legislating a ban would be a "last choice."
As Cybercast News Service reported last week, Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Ill.) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) held a news conference Wednesday calling for more efficient lighting options, and Manzullo said "the last thing we want to do is force legislation down people's throats."
One day later, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) introduced legislation that would set target dates for certain types of light bulbs to be prohibited for sale in the United States.
Harman calls the bill "an important first step toward making every household, business and public building in America more energy-efficient."
"This legislation, while a small step, could have an enormous impact," she said in a posting on the liberal Huffington Post blog. "And hopefully, it can help transform America into an energy-efficient and energy-independent nation."
An average traditional incandescent bulb based on a filament emits 12-15 lumens per watt (a measurement of the bulb's lighting output.) Harman's bill would require all bulbs to produce 60 lumens-per-watt by January 2012; 90 lumens-per-watt by January 2016; and 120 lumens-per-watt by January 2020.
Currently available compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) are about halfway to the ultimate goal, offering approximately 60 lumens-per-watt. A 20-watt CFL produces about as much light as a 100-watt incandescent bulb.
Philips Lighting, the world's largest producers of light bulbs, has joined with environmental groups to encourage legislation banning incandescent bulbs. Some skeptics believe the company is in the debate simply for its own profit.
Brian Darling, director of Senate relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Cybercast News Service it is "unusual" for a company to ask for federal regulation of their product unless it will benefit them financially.
In this case, a federal standard would ensure that incandescent bulbs would not be available from any manufacturer, so if Philips stopped producing the bulbs, it would not lose business to other companies still producing them.
"This company conceivably could be using environmentalism as a pretext to market their more expensive and more energy efficient bulbs to the detriment of their competition, who produce cheaper bulbs," Darling said.
Steve Goldmacher, a spokesman for Philips Lighting, acknowledged Tuesday that the company supports legislating efficiency standards as a way to prevent competitors from offering the traditional bulbs.
"If we stopped [producing the bulbs] ... somebody else would just jump into the breach and continue to manufacture them and continue to fill that gap," he told Cybercast News Service.
"Given the choice of a 25 cent incandescent [bulb] to a $2 or $3 or $5 product ... consumers have made that choice already over the years - they choose the more inefficient type," Goldmacher said, "so here we need to lead them a little by the hand and take those inefficient types off the market."
Goldmacher dismissed skeptics' claims that the company merely wants to require consumers to purchase more expensive products so it can legislate higher profits for itself.
"That's not the driving force here," he said, adding that the company's goal is "to reduce the footprint of the lighting industry and create a more sustainable product."
While the bulbs cost more up-front, they will last longer, Goldmacher said. "If we make a technology that's going to last 25 years, we're not going to make that much money on that purchase, are we?"
Cuba two years ago began phasing out incandescent light bulbs in a reported bid to ease the strain on the communist-ruled island's overtaxed electricity grid. Following Havana's example, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez last November launched a program to distribute millions of energy-saving bulbs, for free, to the country's citizens.
And Australia last month announced a plan that would gradually ban light bulbs that do not comply with energy-efficiency targets.
A spokesman for Harman declined to provide comment for this report.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?P ... 0321a.html
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
March 21, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - A Democratic lawmaker has introduced a bill that would ban the sale of traditional incandescent light bulbs - which are less energy-efficient, prompting claims that they contribute to "global warming" - one day after a colleague told a press conference that legislating a ban would be a "last choice."
As Cybercast News Service reported last week, Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Ill.) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) held a news conference Wednesday calling for more efficient lighting options, and Manzullo said "the last thing we want to do is force legislation down people's throats."
One day later, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) introduced legislation that would set target dates for certain types of light bulbs to be prohibited for sale in the United States.
Harman calls the bill "an important first step toward making every household, business and public building in America more energy-efficient."
"This legislation, while a small step, could have an enormous impact," she said in a posting on the liberal Huffington Post blog. "And hopefully, it can help transform America into an energy-efficient and energy-independent nation."
An average traditional incandescent bulb based on a filament emits 12-15 lumens per watt (a measurement of the bulb's lighting output.) Harman's bill would require all bulbs to produce 60 lumens-per-watt by January 2012; 90 lumens-per-watt by January 2016; and 120 lumens-per-watt by January 2020.
Currently available compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) are about halfway to the ultimate goal, offering approximately 60 lumens-per-watt. A 20-watt CFL produces about as much light as a 100-watt incandescent bulb.
Philips Lighting, the world's largest producers of light bulbs, has joined with environmental groups to encourage legislation banning incandescent bulbs. Some skeptics believe the company is in the debate simply for its own profit.
Brian Darling, director of Senate relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Cybercast News Service it is "unusual" for a company to ask for federal regulation of their product unless it will benefit them financially.
In this case, a federal standard would ensure that incandescent bulbs would not be available from any manufacturer, so if Philips stopped producing the bulbs, it would not lose business to other companies still producing them.
"This company conceivably could be using environmentalism as a pretext to market their more expensive and more energy efficient bulbs to the detriment of their competition, who produce cheaper bulbs," Darling said.
Steve Goldmacher, a spokesman for Philips Lighting, acknowledged Tuesday that the company supports legislating efficiency standards as a way to prevent competitors from offering the traditional bulbs.
"If we stopped [producing the bulbs] ... somebody else would just jump into the breach and continue to manufacture them and continue to fill that gap," he told Cybercast News Service.
"Given the choice of a 25 cent incandescent [bulb] to a $2 or $3 or $5 product ... consumers have made that choice already over the years - they choose the more inefficient type," Goldmacher said, "so here we need to lead them a little by the hand and take those inefficient types off the market."
Goldmacher dismissed skeptics' claims that the company merely wants to require consumers to purchase more expensive products so it can legislate higher profits for itself.
"That's not the driving force here," he said, adding that the company's goal is "to reduce the footprint of the lighting industry and create a more sustainable product."
While the bulbs cost more up-front, they will last longer, Goldmacher said. "If we make a technology that's going to last 25 years, we're not going to make that much money on that purchase, are we?"
Cuba two years ago began phasing out incandescent light bulbs in a reported bid to ease the strain on the communist-ruled island's overtaxed electricity grid. Following Havana's example, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez last November launched a program to distribute millions of energy-saving bulbs, for free, to the country's citizens.
And Australia last month announced a plan that would gradually ban light bulbs that do not comply with energy-efficiency targets.
A spokesman for Harman declined to provide comment for this report.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?P ... 0321a.html
-
Shirleypal
- Pirate
- Posts: 45448
- Joined: 03-06-2003 03:00 AM
Light bulbs ban to slash emissions
Email Print Normal font Large font Wendy Frew and Linton Besser
February 20, 2007
Page 1 of 2 | Single page
Advertisement
AdvertisementTHE inefficient standard light bulb could be phased out within three years to save up to 800,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.
The federal Environment Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, is expected today to announce a commitment to phase out incandescent light bulbs by 2009-10, a world first by a national government.
It hopes to convince state and territory governments to introduce energy performance standards that would lead to the replacement of standard light bulbs with more efficient but more expensive alternatives such as compact fluorescent lights. It will also negotiate with manufacturers to phase out the bulbs.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/ ... 85061.html
Though the days of supermarket shelves full of 40-cent light bulbs may be numbered, the lighting industry predicts the price shock will not last long. In many cases, compact fluorescent lamps sell for about $10 each, but typically last six times as long as their predecessors.
Colin Goldman, the head of Nelson Industries, a lighting importer, supported the move.
"These days you can buy a six-pack at the $10 mark," he said. "The prices are coming down, and as soon as you get volume with greater numbers on the market they come down further."
The Government is under pressure to improve its green credentials. Climate change will be a big issue in the federal election.
Australia was not the first with the idea. Last month legislators in California proposed a "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" that would phase out incandescent light bulbs by 2012 in favour of compact fluorescent bulbs.
According to the Federal Government, up to 95 per cent of the energy each standard light bulb uses is wasted, while compact fluorescents use only 20 per cent as much electricity to produce the same amount of light.
EnergyAustralia says by using just one 15-watt compact fluorescent bulb instead of a 75-watt standard bulb, consumers could save about $10 a year.
In Australia lighting represents about 12 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions from households, about 25 per cent of commercial sector emissions, and a quarter of the emissions associated with public and street lighting.
The Federal Government estimates replacing the old bulbs with compact fluorescents in homes could cut greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 800,000 tonnes a year in 2008-12. Australia's emissions in 2004 totalled 564.7 million tonnes.
Mr Goldman said compact fluorescent bulbs were available that emitted a range of light.
"You can get warm white, which is a yellowish light, or natural, which is white, or day-light, which is more blueish."
The new bulbs would not necessarily require any rewiring of homes or offices, he said.
Greg Bourne, the chief executive of the conservation organisation WWF, said phasing out standard bulbs was a useful step in the transition to an energy-efficient world, but it passed on the cost directly to consumers.
"Architecturally, in some places it is difficult to change over," he said. "It [the federal decision] does feel like a knee-jerk reaction, but it is a step in the right direction."
The marketing director of Thorn Lighting Australia, Ian Wiseman, said he wanted to see government subsidies for importers and distributors.
It is understood there will be no ban on halogen lights, which are more efficient than the old bulbs.
A BIG SWITCH
- Incandescent light bulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago.
- By 2005 about 100 million compact fluorescent light bulbs were sold in the US, or about 5 per cent of the 2 billion light bulb market.
- Wal-Mart alone wants to sell 100 million CFLs by the end of this year.
- By using just one 15-watt compact fluorescent bulb instead of a 75-watt standard bulb you can save about $10 a year on your energy bill.
- Compact fluorescent bulbs pay for themselves within 12 months.
Email Print Normal font Large font Wendy Frew and Linton Besser
February 20, 2007
Page 1 of 2 | Single page
Advertisement
AdvertisementTHE inefficient standard light bulb could be phased out within three years to save up to 800,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.
The federal Environment Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, is expected today to announce a commitment to phase out incandescent light bulbs by 2009-10, a world first by a national government.
It hopes to convince state and territory governments to introduce energy performance standards that would lead to the replacement of standard light bulbs with more efficient but more expensive alternatives such as compact fluorescent lights. It will also negotiate with manufacturers to phase out the bulbs.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/ ... 85061.html
Though the days of supermarket shelves full of 40-cent light bulbs may be numbered, the lighting industry predicts the price shock will not last long. In many cases, compact fluorescent lamps sell for about $10 each, but typically last six times as long as their predecessors.
Colin Goldman, the head of Nelson Industries, a lighting importer, supported the move.
"These days you can buy a six-pack at the $10 mark," he said. "The prices are coming down, and as soon as you get volume with greater numbers on the market they come down further."
The Government is under pressure to improve its green credentials. Climate change will be a big issue in the federal election.
Australia was not the first with the idea. Last month legislators in California proposed a "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" that would phase out incandescent light bulbs by 2012 in favour of compact fluorescent bulbs.
According to the Federal Government, up to 95 per cent of the energy each standard light bulb uses is wasted, while compact fluorescents use only 20 per cent as much electricity to produce the same amount of light.
EnergyAustralia says by using just one 15-watt compact fluorescent bulb instead of a 75-watt standard bulb, consumers could save about $10 a year.
In Australia lighting represents about 12 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions from households, about 25 per cent of commercial sector emissions, and a quarter of the emissions associated with public and street lighting.
The Federal Government estimates replacing the old bulbs with compact fluorescents in homes could cut greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 800,000 tonnes a year in 2008-12. Australia's emissions in 2004 totalled 564.7 million tonnes.
Mr Goldman said compact fluorescent bulbs were available that emitted a range of light.
"You can get warm white, which is a yellowish light, or natural, which is white, or day-light, which is more blueish."
The new bulbs would not necessarily require any rewiring of homes or offices, he said.
Greg Bourne, the chief executive of the conservation organisation WWF, said phasing out standard bulbs was a useful step in the transition to an energy-efficient world, but it passed on the cost directly to consumers.
"Architecturally, in some places it is difficult to change over," he said. "It [the federal decision] does feel like a knee-jerk reaction, but it is a step in the right direction."
The marketing director of Thorn Lighting Australia, Ian Wiseman, said he wanted to see government subsidies for importers and distributors.
It is understood there will be no ban on halogen lights, which are more efficient than the old bulbs.
A BIG SWITCH
- Incandescent light bulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago.
- By 2005 about 100 million compact fluorescent light bulbs were sold in the US, or about 5 per cent of the 2 billion light bulb market.
- Wal-Mart alone wants to sell 100 million CFLs by the end of this year.
- By using just one 15-watt compact fluorescent bulb instead of a 75-watt standard bulb you can save about $10 a year on your energy bill.
- Compact fluorescent bulbs pay for themselves within 12 months.
-
Shirleypal
- Pirate
- Posts: 45448
- Joined: 03-06-2003 03:00 AM
Each one of the 'new' lights contains a small amount of mercury. What is going to happen when tens of millions of them end up in land fills? Will the mercury leach down into the soil and then into ground water? Yes, people may be told to 'dispose of them properly', but how many people are just going to throw them into the trash? I have a fear about these new lights, and what might come back to bite us in the ass in the future.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry
Yes. Careful disposal in needed. However, there is not as much mercury in the compact flourescents as we may think.
from article on Energy Star:
Switching from traditional light bulbs to CFLs is an effective, accessible change every American can make right now to reduce energy use at home and revent greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global climate change. Lighting accounts for close to 20 percent of the average home's electric bill. Changing to CFLs costs little upfront and provides a quick return on investment.
If every home in America replaced just one incandescent light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified CFL, it would have enough energy to light more than 3 million homes and prevent greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those of more than 800,000 cars annually.
Do CFLs contain mercury?
CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing - an average of 5 milligrams, which is roughly equivalent to an amount that would cover the tip of a ball-point pen. No mercury is released when the bulbs are intact or in use. By comparison, older thermometers contain about 500 milligrams of mercury. It would take 100 CFLs to equal that amount.
Mercury currently is an essential component of CFLs and is what allows the bulb to be an efficient light source. Many manufacturers have taken significant steps to reduce mercury used in their fluorescent lighting products. In fact, the average amount of mercury in a CFL is anticipated to drop by the end of 2007, thanks to technology advances and a commitment from the members of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
What is mercury?
Mercury is an element (Hg on the periodic table) found naturally in the environment. Mercury emissions in the air can come from both natural and man-made sources. Utility power plants (mainly coal-fired) are the largest man-made source, because mercury that naturally exists in coal is released into the air when coal is burned to make electricity.
Energy efficient CFLs present an opportunity to prevent mercury emissions from entering the environment because they help to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants. Coal-fired power generation accounts for roughly 40 percent of the mercury emissions in the U.S.
EPA is implementing policies to reduce airborne mercury emissions. Under regulations EPA issued in 2005, mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants will drop by nearly 70 percent by 2018.
For more information on all sources of mercury, visithttp://www.epa.gov/mercury.
from article on Energy Star:
Switching from traditional light bulbs to CFLs is an effective, accessible change every American can make right now to reduce energy use at home and revent greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global climate change. Lighting accounts for close to 20 percent of the average home's electric bill. Changing to CFLs costs little upfront and provides a quick return on investment.
If every home in America replaced just one incandescent light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified CFL, it would have enough energy to light more than 3 million homes and prevent greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those of more than 800,000 cars annually.
Do CFLs contain mercury?
CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing - an average of 5 milligrams, which is roughly equivalent to an amount that would cover the tip of a ball-point pen. No mercury is released when the bulbs are intact or in use. By comparison, older thermometers contain about 500 milligrams of mercury. It would take 100 CFLs to equal that amount.
Mercury currently is an essential component of CFLs and is what allows the bulb to be an efficient light source. Many manufacturers have taken significant steps to reduce mercury used in their fluorescent lighting products. In fact, the average amount of mercury in a CFL is anticipated to drop by the end of 2007, thanks to technology advances and a commitment from the members of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
What is mercury?
Mercury is an element (Hg on the periodic table) found naturally in the environment. Mercury emissions in the air can come from both natural and man-made sources. Utility power plants (mainly coal-fired) are the largest man-made source, because mercury that naturally exists in coal is released into the air when coal is burned to make electricity.
Energy efficient CFLs present an opportunity to prevent mercury emissions from entering the environment because they help to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants. Coal-fired power generation accounts for roughly 40 percent of the mercury emissions in the U.S.
EPA is implementing policies to reduce airborne mercury emissions. Under regulations EPA issued in 2005, mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants will drop by nearly 70 percent by 2018.
For more information on all sources of mercury, visithttp://www.epa.gov/mercury.
-
Psychicwolf
- Pirate
- Posts: 5999
- Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM
majda wrote: Each one of the 'new' lights contains a small amount of mercury. What is going to happen when tens of millions of them end up in land fills? Will the mercury leach down into the soil and then into ground water? Yes, people may be told to 'dispose of them properly', but how many people are just going to throw them into the trash? I have a fear about these new lights, and what might come back to bite us in the ass in the future.
This is my concern with the CFL bulbs too. Some OB's are now warning pregnant women to not do the clean-up of these bulbs if they break in the home. Course they warn pregnant women not to clean the cat box either due to toxoplasmosis and yet millions of women still keep their fur-babies, so who knows...
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.
Psychicwolf, there was a story circulating about a woman who dropped a screw-in flourescent bulb when changing it, and it hit something on the carpet and shattered. She wanted to be sure all the tiny slivers of glass got out of the carpet, so she called a cleaning company. When she told the cleaning company why she needed them, they called the DEQ because of the mercury in the bulb. I don't know if the story is true, but I suspect it is. It ended up costing the woman thousands of dollars in the end, to satisfy the government because of mercury. Look what people go through with asbestos. Okay, what are the chances of that happening to someone...pretty small. But, and that's a big 'but' - if the government is that concerned about mercury, it would seem to me that those bulbs wouldn't be a good thing to end up in landfills! Sometimes humans have a way of doing one thing thinking they are doing good, and in the end, it ends up being far worse than what they were trying to change.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry
tiffany wrote: And how many a day land up in a landfill.............millions!
Exactly tiffany. And all those bulbs that contain about 5 milligrams of mercury X's millions a day, X's 365 days a year, X's 10 years. How much mercury is that? Besides, the bulbs are being made in China. Can we trust that they only contain 'small' amounts of mercury??? Since when has China cared about regulations or what poisons they send us?
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry