Europe’s Ban on Old-Style Bulbs Begins By JAMES KANTER
Published: August 31, 2009
BRUSSELS — Restrictions on the sale of incandescent bulbs begin going into effect across most of Europe on Tuesday in the continent’s latest effort to get people to save energy and combat global warming. But even advocates concede the change is proving problematic.
Under the European Union rules, shops will no longer be allowed to buy or import most incandescent frosted glass bulbs starting Tuesday. Retailers can continue selling off their stock until they run out.
While some Europeans are eagerly jumping on the bandwagon, others are panicking and have been stockpiling the old-style bulbs for aesthetic or practical reasons. Others are resigned to the switch, if grudgingly.
“Why are we switching? Because we have to,” said Ralph Wennig, a 40-year-old photographer shopping on Monday at BHV, a Paris department store.
The new compact fluorescent lamps are billed as more economical in the long run because they use up to 80 percent less energy and do not burn out as quickly.
“But the downside is that the light isn’t as nice,” Mr. Wennig said, “and they are more expensive individually.”
One bulb can cost €10, or $14 — or a lot more, depending on type — whereas traditional incandescent bulbs cost about 70 cents each. But E.U. officials argued that the energy savings would cut average household electricity bills by up to €50 a year, amounting to about €5 billion annually. That would help buoy the economy if consumers spent their savings, they said.
At a briefing Monday in Brussels, however, they also were defending themselves against charges that they were depriving children of traditional fairground lights, and dealing with more serious questions about health hazards from the mercury in the new lamps.
Such arguments have already started to reverberate in the United States, where incandescent bulbs are due to be phased out starting in 2012.
Until then, the E.U. is providing the biggest staging ground for both the conversion as well as a debate over trade-offs created by environmental legislation. The issues include the loss of long-standing manufacturing industries, consumer choice and possible exacerbation of other environmental hazards.
The ban is one of a series of measures to support the E.U. goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020. Everything from televisions to washing machines to tiny motors are being made more energy-efficient.
But the light bulb ban has proved singular in the way it has stirred fierce debate. The ubiquity of lighting and the way it can alter the aesthetics of an interior, even the experience of reading a book, makes it somehow more personal.
E.U. countries are not the first to ban incandescent light bulbs, but they are in the vanguard.
Australia has already introduced a ban and Cuba has entirely shifted to compact fluorescent bulbs, according to Andras Toth, an expert with the European Commission, the E.U. executive agency.
Consumer advocates in Europe have cautiously welcomed the measures but they also have pointed to drawbacks for consumers — especially those who have a special sensitivity to certain kinds of light or need old-style bulbs for health reasons.
“The blanket ban could spell misery for thousands of epilepsy and anxiety sufferers who are adversely affected by energy-saving bulbs,” said Martin Callanan, a European Parliament member.
He also warned that the new bulbs would not work in all types of fixtures nor with dimmer switches, and that they would give off a harsh light.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/business/energy-environment/01iht-bulb.html?_r=2
______________________________
I have not copied the entire article down here, simply because it is rather long. If you would like to read the rest simply follow the link above.
This story interests me greatly. There are two distinct sides to this war. The side that says let’s save money, save the planet, and use more energy-efficient light bulbs. Then the other side that say, you do this it won’t save money, won’t save the planet, and will harm human health. Question is, who’s right?
Here’s what I think. I think both sides are right, and both sides are wrong.
Side A (the pro fluorescent bulbs side) says –
Advantages are – saving money, combating global warming, by cutting greenhouse gas emission, and they seem to say that it will work because guess what? Cuba’s already doing it!
What does the other side have to say?
Side B (the anti new bulb side) says –
No! You better not try this. If you do the following catastrophes will occur – No money saved (because these new bulbs cost more), people will get angry, children won’t be happy at fairs, anyone who owns a house will be annoyed at the way the light shines, readers will be injured, and epileptics will suffer further than they already are.
Seems to me that the cons outweigh the pros on this one. But, before we jump to any conclusions let’s analyze these pros and cons. Side A first. Saving money. They say that these new bulbs will save money, because they are more energy-efficient and last longer. Their reasons are if a bulb lasts longer, you buy less of them. Pretty logical argument. However, what about the price of these bulbs?
“One bulb can cost €10, or $14 — or a lot more, depending on type — whereas traditional incandescent bulbs cost about 70 cents each. But E.U. officials argued that the energy savings would cut average household electricity bills by up to €50 a year, amounting to about €5 billion annually. That would help buoy the economy if consumers spent their savings, they said.”
Weighing the money issue is going to be a delicate matter. Right off the bat I can tell you that the average lifespan for an incandescent bulb is roughly one-thousand hours. What is the average lifespan of their florescent competitor?
“While a standard incandescent bulb might last 1000 hours, a fluorescent lamp might last 9000, with 6000 to 7500 hours being average. In fact, the number of hours that a tube operates has less of an effect on tube life than the number of starts it endures.”
http://www.ustr.net/electronics/fluorescent.shtml
Those are just the facts. The old bulbs last one thousand hours, and the new ones last, well, at least six times longer, maybe more. However, is it still worth the money? Let’s do some math. We’ll say that it will take six incandescent bulbs to do the work of one florescent. Seventy cents (the average price of an incandescent bulb) times six (the number of bulbs needed to fill the place of one florescent one) is, check this out, four dollars and twenty cents. So, according to the news story, a fluorescent bulb will cost roughly fourteen dollars, whereas the number of old bulbs you could get with the same amount of money would equal just over four of the new bulbs. As I think about this I’m beginning to think I’d rather have more bulbs for less money that give out more light for longer than to spend much more money and have the life-time.
Onto their next “Advantage”. That of combating global warming. I love this reason. In this day and age people will do anything to put their cause under the, “Combats global warming” name tag. The only evidence so far that I’ve found on how energy efficiency helps stop global warming has only said that it might help stop it. So far I’ve found no one who is able to firmly say that stopping green house gas emissions will spur the start of cutting global warming on the planet. However, I haven’t found evidence yet stating it won’t either. So this argument remains up in the air.
How about the next one, this will work because Cuba’s already doing it! Well, we know how stable Cuba is. But that’s hardly the point, these new-bulb advocates seem to think that something that works in one country, works just as well in another. This isn’t always the case.
Take law enforcement for example. What would happen if all of our Dodge Charger’s, Crown Victoria’s, and other law enforcement cars were sent over to Europe as the new cars to handle those speeding and street racing? Would it work? Goodness no! Why do you think that Europe has such high-class law enforcement vehicles? Because many cars in Europe, or at least those that are street-racing, are high class. Our Charger’s wouldn’t be able to catch up to the speed demons. Some things work in some places, and not in others. Also, has anyone said yet that Cuba is actually doing something good with this new innovation? Nope, didn’t think so. They only stated the fact that Cuba has done it, not that it’s been saving money, lowing green house gas emissions, or helping boost the economy.
Ok, it’s about time we look at the other side of the argument. Side B’s lovely set of woes to this new idea. Firstly, no money saved! Well, this has already been addressed and therefore doesn’t need explaining, money savings is up to you to decide, you’ve got the math right there, it’s all out in the open.
The next one, the poor children won’t be happy at fairs. I suppose there’s some unwritten rule that you HAVE to have incandescent bulbs at a fair. And, I’ve never been there, but, on google I can’t find a thing talking about any fairs in the EU. I know of the Oregon state fair, the Clark County fair, Battleground WA has one I believe. But, in the EU? I don’t think they hold too many.
Now, onto how the light is different between the bulbs. How many of you have been in a room with incandescent bulbs? I’m guessing about 100% have, what about the fluorescent ones? Probably close to the same. Yes, the fluorescent light is, I would say, harsher, but that’s about all.
However, these complaints are found to be somewhat factual. I was truly wondering about the headache, and issues with epileptics, and here’s what I found.
This is from the Environment, Health and Safety Online, “A common question about the use of fluorescent lights, such as the long tubes and the spiral compact fluorescent lights regards the potential for headaches, particularly migraines and some types of seizures. Due to the State of California's recent proposal to mandate the use of fluorescent lights (to save energy), this question has been frequently brought up in the media lately, such as on the Neal Boortz radio show and some newspapers. There is some truth to these claims, although they generally affect only a very small percentage of the population and there are solutions. For people affected by the flicker of fluorescent lights, the issue is very real.” http://www.ehso.com/fluorescent_safety.php
Epilepsy Action says, “Although some people find fluorescent lighting uncomfortable, the flicker rate (100 Hz) means it should not be a problem for most people. The flicker of a faulty fluorescent light, however, could trigger a seizure in people with photosensitive epilepsy.”
http://www.epilepsy.org.uk/info/photo_other.html
So, it looks like it could be a problem to some people, but only to a small minority. My question to you all then is this. If we’re not certain whether doing this change will combat global warming, if it is obviously cheaper the way it is now, and if no one is hurt right now with incandescent bulbs, why on earth would we mandate fluorescent bulbs? They obviously have some effects on human health, though minor they are still there. They are obviously much more expensive. I say we stick to what we’re doing right now, and stop hurting ourselves over change a perfect system.
