backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 54 comment(s) - last by cane.. on Mar 14 at 12:07 PM
The European Union joins Australia in an effort to phase out incandescents

In the past month, DailyTech has reported on two government initiatives to cut down on power requirements and greenhouse emissions. In Raleigh, NC, the local government is committed to making the switch from incandescent to LED lighting for public lighting (street lights, pedestrian walkways, parking deck lighting, etc). The move would save the city roughly $80,000 USD a year in utility bills.

Likewise, Australia's Environment Minister announced that his country would be phasing out all incandescent light bulbs and replacing them with fluorescents. The move is said to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 4 million tons while cutting household power bills by 66%.

Now it appears that the European Union (EU) is jumping on the energy-efficient lighting bandwagon. EU leaders at a summit on Friday mandated that energy-efficient lighting be in place in office buildings and streets in 2008 and homes by 2009.

"We're not saying people should throw out all the bulbs in their house today but people should start looking at what's in the shops," said German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The EU has set a target to reduce energy consumption by 20% before 2020. The EU has also challenged the United States, China and India to make similar measures and is committed to upping its target to 30% if the countries comply.

The EU has also made a commitment to receive 20% of its power from renewable energy sources by 2020. This would be a substantial improvement from the current level of 6.5%.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
not a bad idea
By TSS on 3/13/2007 7:11:37 AM , Rating: 2
it's a good idea for saving energy where we can. and it does have benefits, when we switched from normal 40watt lights to saving lights all around the house (something of 11 watts or something?)we shaved off about 50 euro's from our electric bill (yes, THAT much. but their on alot.) which is never a bad thing. though i have to admit, the light they produce is less, not significantly lesser but lesser none the less.

but all in all, i think we are pushing efficientcy a little hard. it's the hot item of the moment, but we really need to be carefull we dont have to trade some of the stuff we have gained in for lesser quality simply because it saves a few watts.

the old "not too little not too much but just right" principle.




RE: not a bad idea
By Spivonious on 3/13/2007 8:26:58 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I switched to the flourescent bulbs a few months ago for my house. I found that I had to look at the light output ratings and not the "same as a __W bulb!" on the package, otherwise the flourescent was noticeably dimmer.

I don't know if this is just with the ones I bought, but after a few months the new bulbs started making a high-pitched whistling noise. If the TV is on I don't notice it, but if it's quiet, the whistling becomes quote annoying. I'm sure that most people wouldn't be able to hear this...it's like a dog-whistle frequency.

But, the savings in replacement bulbs alone is worth the cost. My parents switched to flourescents about 10 years ago and they just now had to replace a bulb. Pretty good, if you ask me.


RE: not a bad idea
By Samus on 3/13/2007 8:49:30 AM , Rating: 2
it goes either way, i have some CFL 100-watt bulbs that are significantly brighter than a normal 100-watt bulb, and I have some 60-watt CFL's that are more in the range of a 40-watt bulb.

they also don't reach peak lumen output until their operating temperature is reached, something in the order of 140F for my 100-watt CFL.


RE: not a bad idea
By dever on 3/13/2007 12:49:55 PM , Rating: 1
Is everyone missing the point here? This is not about weather CFLs or LEDs are better, and for some purposes they are, it's about government intrusion and contorl. It's about free markets and competition. Remember the recent article on the possibility of much more efficient incandescents? That would not be the case without open, free, competative markets. It's amazing how people will go along with politically fashionable edicts, that erode societal and personal freedoms. These sort of mandates will only serve to do the opposite of their "claimed" purpose. When products are truly better and more efficient, people will use them, and competing products will have to change to stay relevant. This is basic stuff. Come on people.


RE: not a bad idea
By TomZ on 3/13/2007 1:31:02 PM , Rating: 2
I totally agree. I ranted about this on the Australia article, and I feel the same about the EU. The EU should let consumers, businesses, and the markets sort themselves out. Intrusion like this will most likely have a bad outcome/unintended consequence. Markets and businesses are more clever than the government, and they will find any and all opportunities to achieve their purposes without regard to the government's actual goal.

If the EU or any other government wants to increase the use of high-efficiency lighting, then it should contribute in less intrusive ways like making available grants for R&D of related technology and manufacturing process that can benefit industry. This way, they can accelerate adoption through the normal market process, rather than telling people what kind of bulbs they're allowed or not allowed to use.


RE: not a bad idea
By TomZ on 3/13/2007 2:15:01 PM , Rating: 1
Please, all people who do not believe in freedom, please go ahead and downrate these comments. After all, the government should be able to decide for you what types of lightbulbs you should be able to use or not use. Because after all, we would not be able to figure it out for ourselves.

Freedom is wasted on those who do not appreciate and understand it, and those who are so willing to give it up their civil liberties so needlessly probably should be deprived of them anyway.


RE: not a bad idea
By Russell on 3/13/2007 4:10:43 PM , Rating: 3
I believe in the freedom to downrate posts wherein the author arrogantly misuses (and, frankly, abuses) freedom as an argument against laws and regulations.

"Freedom is wasted on those who do not appreciate and understand it" <-- I agree. People such as yourself cannot possibly understand what freedom actually means, which is probably why you misuse the word.


RE: not a bad idea
By TomZ on 3/13/2007 5:08:21 PM , Rating: 3
Laws and regulations are okay to limit freedom and personal choice when there is a compelling need, which is not the case with regulations that intend to force consumers to use certain types of lightbulbs.

Regulations like this are just about politician do-gooders meddling with free markets and slowly eroding your freedom to make decisions for yourself. The arrogance in this situation is in the politicians' belief that such decisions need to be made for their citizens.

Do you consider yourself able to decide for yourself? Or do you need someone to decide for you? That is the principle here.


RE: not a bad idea
By Russell on 3/13/2007 6:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
I understand what you are saying. It is a bit heavy-handed but I do happen to agree with the cause. I think that regulating this now will save some problems later (from both perspectives of reduced greenhouse gasses and reduced demand for electricity that is already very expensive to provide, particularly at peak hours).

I take issue with your crying out 'freedom violation!' over this. I feel it's almost always used inappropriately (including in this case). A rational argument against regulation is more effective, I feel, than an emotional one, which is what I feel you were doing (though your reply is very much on the rational side).

While I do consider myself able to decide for myself, I believe that most of the population is stupid and does need somebody to make long-term decisions for them.


RE: not a bad idea
By logan77 on 3/14/2007 7:43:18 AM , Rating: 2
You are calling for right to shit on people's heads (confusing it with being "free"). I can not agree with that. You won't be forced to buy at particular vendor - THAT would be action against your freedom.

People judge their purchases based mostly on it's price (usually putting disproportionally big emphasis on short term costs - "here and now" prevails). People in general won't bother to buy more expensive, but environmnentally friendly(tm) products, hence the legislative initiative. And I for one applaud it.


RE: not a bad idea
By typo101 on 3/13/2007 7:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
Although you do have a point about governments usually messing things up when they are just trying to help, I'm not so sure they are wrong to get involved on some level. Maybe they should have given light bulb manufacturers (all types) and deadline to drop their bulbs to x watts per lumens.

The market does have a way of adapting istelf much better than government regulations can change things, but in what way will it adapt? Financialy or Environmentaly? Enforcing flourescent probably isn't the best way, but I don't disagree with giving the market a good hard shove in the right direction.


RE: not a bad idea
By FrankM on 3/13/2007 1:35:28 PM , Rating: 2
First, the word choice of the article is poor, as it is a directive, and I haven't heard of them planning on making laws of these for civilians.
Second, traditional lightbulbs have an efficiency of ~4%. It's a piece of tungsten in a gas superheated to the point it's glowing white-hot. Fluorescent is much more efficient, but their low-frequency vibration is fatiguing (that's why they are usually in groups of 2-3-4-etc); but compact bulbs vibrate at high frequencies which are not visible. We've been using them for 5-6 years.
Third, the market has its failures. Traditionals are cheap, while compact bulbs are more expensive to manufacture; therefore it has to have a very small margin to be competitive. So what do the companies rather produce? Your call.
Lastly, why are some Americans so paranoid?


RE: not a bad idea
By TomZ on 3/13/2007 2:32:44 PM , Rating: 1
It's not paranoia, we just value our civil liberties and we are generally against socialist-leaning governments.


RE: not a bad idea
By CSMR on 3/13/2007 10:37:09 AM , Rating: 2
Probably just the ones you bought. I had this issue with one brand of bulb but not any others.


RE: not a bad idea
By ElJefe69 on 3/13/2007 11:00:05 AM , Rating: 1
everything in your house looks like shit now due to poor colour from the short spectrum of light,

plus,

you get headaches and irritation from the slow flash of the bulb.

i use incandescents as it makes your mind more at ease. 15 dollars a month difference is me not ordering a second martini.


RE: not a bad idea
By TomZ on 3/13/2007 11:15:16 AM , Rating: 2
What you describe might be true for traditional fluorescents, but not modern CFLs. I've been replacing my incandescents with CFLs, and the light quality and color is good - very similar to the incandescents they are replacing. These bulbs have electronic ballasts that operate in the tens of kilohertz range - no flicker.

In our home, we have people home all the time, and lights are on all the time. The cost savings, I think, will be pretty significant for us.

One other minor benefit of CFLs - we have some hallway light fixtures that were limited to 40-watt bulbs which were a little too dim for that area, and I replaced them with 16-watt CFLs which are equivalent to 60-watt incandescents. The hall is now brighter than before.


RE: not a bad idea
By PlasmaBomb on 3/13/2007 8:46:28 AM , Rating: 2
An 11W fluorescent bulb is about equivalent to a 60W bulb so they should have produced more light than your old bulbs.


RE: not a bad idea
By Spoelie on 3/13/2007 10:37:20 AM , Rating: 3
How recent did you make the change? They have been making good progress, to a point where you can't really compare bulbs bought two years ago to the ones you find today.

What i really want to know however, what are the environmental effects of producing a CFL compared to a normal bulb? And if you compare the overall picture (production cost/environmental effect in material and energy spent at production, electricity spent over the lifetime, recycable leftovers, ....) which comes out on top?


RE: not a bad idea
By TomZ on 3/13/2007 11:07:33 AM , Rating: 2
The CFL's I'm finding in the stores here in the U.S. have both mercury and lead. Not a great place to start.


RE: not a bad idea
By Wonga on 3/13/2007 3:23:44 PM