I have been trying to figure out how to post one of my talks on here but am en-mired in technical problems not the least of which is trying to film one of my lectures, the last attempt failed because of poor sound quality.

One interesting paper that has be produced and will find its way onto the site soon is an MSc  Thesis by Halldor Steinsen fro Iceland who has undertaken a detailed study of the impact of the proposed ban on incandescent lamps in Iceland and substantially proves that a change to CFLi will produce a net increase in CO2 emissions attributable to the change over rather than  savings ! i am working with Halldor to provide an edited version of the paper for publication here and elsewhere.

Please do keep in touch with this site through comments and any information you may have as a submission.

Published Date: 20 November 2009
By Robert Dex
ENERGY-SAVING light bulbs lose a fifth of their brightness over their lifetime, according to new research. The bulbs, known as compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), use up to 80 per cent less electricity than traditional incandescent bulbs, which are being phased out of shops.
But a study carried out by a German consumer group found CFLs lose much of their brightness over their lifetime and can end up emitting just 60 per cent as much light as their nearest equivalent traditional bulb. Researchers tested 18 CFLs over 10,000 hours and found an average reduction in brightness of 22 per cent. Three of the bulbs stopped working altogether. Traditional bulbs lose no more than 7 per cent of their brightness by the time they stop working – which is about 2,000 hours after first being used.

Dickon Ross, editor of Engineering and Technology magazine, which published the research, said consumers were being misled. He said: “There is a big difference between what most bulbs’ packaging promises and what the reality is. It’s no wonder so many consumers are dissatisfied with the bulbs.”
Earlier this year, countries across the EU started a mandatory phase-out of 100W and frosted incandescent light bulbs in favour of energy-efficient CFLs following a voluntary phase-out that started in 2007. Supporters of the new bulbs say they can cut a home’s annual energy bill by up to £37 and save 135kg of each year. However, others say the energy-saving light bulbs can trigger migraines, exacerbate skin conditions and lead to other health problems.
In August, it became illegal for retailers to import 100W, frosted or pearled incandescent light bulbs, or to sell them once their current stocks have run out. Instead, consumers have to rely upon CFLs or low-energy halogen bulbs. From September 2011, 60W clear incandescent bulbs will be banned, followed by a ban on all remaining incandescent bulbs in September 2012. The EU says the measures will save enough energy by 2020 to power 11 million households every year, reducing emissions of carbon dioxide by 15 million tonnes a year. It says conventional incandescent light bulbs convert only about 10 per cent of the energy they use into light, with the rest given off as heat. Dr Paula Owen, at the Energy Saving Trust, the government-backed body, said good energy-saving light bulbs would only be noticeably dimmer after six to ten years. She added: “Typically, a low-energy light bulb used in a living room will last ten times longer than a traditional one. “In this time, the householder will have saved about £65 on their energy bill.” However, David Price, of Spectrum, an alliance of charities working with people with light-sensitive health conditions, said public concerns were being ignored in the move to energy efficiency.
Last Updated: 20 November 2009 12:46 PM
Source: The Scotsman
Location: Edinburgh
Energy-saving light bulbs: Maybe they’re not such a bright idea a… http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk/Maybe-they39re-not-such-a…

Save the planet, switch to eco-light bulbs. So goes the refrain. But are these as bright,
long-lasting and energy efficient as is often claimed?
The traditional incandescent bulb is on the way out. European law means people will be
encouraged to use longer-lasting, energy-efficient lights instead.
But many remain unconvinced that the common alternative – compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs)
- are up to the job.
European legislation has already banned the manufacture and import of 100-watt incandescent
bulbs. In 2011, 60-watt bulbs will go, and 40- and 25-watt bulbs will be banned by 2012.
But are these bulbs quite as good as is claimed?

BRIGHTNESS
Think those compact fluorescent bulbs are not as bright as the old-style lights they replaced?You are probably not imagining it. A guide to the amount of light given by a CFL bulb is given on its box as a comparison to the wattage of an incandescent bulb. But the European Commission saysthis can be misleading.
“Currently, exaggerated claims are often made on the packaging about the light output of
compact fluorescent lamps – for example that an 11-12-watt compact fluorescent lamp would be the equivalent of a 60-watt incandescent, which is not true.”
The Lighting Industry Federation says the claims on the packaging are the nearest equivalent to the wattage of a soft white light bulb.

Liz Peck, of the Society of Light and Lighting, says this is because CFLs have a phosphor
coating. “They compare like for like, but the trouble is people tend to use the clear bulbs at
home and it’s not equivalent to those.”
The European Commission’s advice is to divide the wattage of a traditional light bulb by four to get the equivalent brightness. So, to get the brightness of a traditional 60-watt bulb, choose a 15-watt CFL bulb. But the Lighting Research Center in the United States goes further. “We believe in the divide by three rule,” says associate director Russell Leslie, who recommends a 20-watt CFL to match a 60-watt incandescent bulb. “The equivalent ratings you see on the box are usually got by testing in a laboratory environment.”
At home, brightness varies as conditions change. “A compact fluorescent light is designed to provide maximum light output at 25C, and when it gets hotter or colder than that, its brightness can be reduced.
“If your bulb is in a recessed fixture in the ceiling, and it gets warm, you might see a 10-20% reduction in its light output.”
And studies show CFL bulbs can get 20% dimmer over time.

New European regulations expected next year mean manufacturers will have to display lumens – a measure of light output – more prominently than wattage on bulb packaging.

LIFESPAN
Another complaint is eco bulbs – supposed to last for years – frequently conk out early.
“Unfortunately you get what you pay for,” says Ms Peck. While a branded bulb from a
well-known manufacturer may indeed last the promised 10 years, one from a supermarket
budget line may not. But even branded bulbs don’t always last as long as expected – this is because the lifespan given is an average. When a batch of bulbs is tested, they are turned on for three hours, then off for 20 minutes over and over again until half the batch fails. This point in time is then decreed the average life. It is often 10,000 hours. As no-one adds up the hours a light is on over its lifespan, this is translated as 10 years, on the assumption that the bulb will be on for an average of three hours a day. But as half the bulbs will fail before 10,000 hours, a shopper may be unlucky enough to pick a dud that will fail after just 2,000 hours. However, the main manufacturers do their best to make
bulbs that cluster around the average life mark, says the Lighting Industry Federation.
And what you do with a bulb can affect its lifespan, says Mr Leslie. Continuously turning it off and on every 15 minutes, for example, will more than halve its expected lifespan.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Just how energy efficient are these lights? The European Commission, the Energy Savings Trust and manufacturers say CFLs use up to 80% less electricity than traditional bulbs.
How is this number calculated? It’s worked out by comparing the best compact fluorescent
lamp’s wattage with the wattage of an equivalent incandescent bulb, says a spokeswoman for the European Commission. But that results in a 5:1 energy ratio between the two – a claim it says is an exaggeration when manufacturers use it. And it’s the “up to” in this 80% claim that is important. The EC spokeswoman says the saving can be as low as 60%.
John Henderson, an energy-use expert from the consultancy Building Research Establishment, says although CFLs are better than traditional bulbs, policy-makers should not draw simple conclusions from simple sums about their energy saving potential.
“When you see an 80% savings figure on the side of a low-energy light bulb, it doesn’t actually mean that you’re going to save 80% lighting energy, 80% carbon emissions, and 80% costs.”
Traditional bulbs expend about 95% of their energy producing heat. The European Commission considers this to be heat loss. But Mr Henderson disagrees.
“Let’s say your house uses 1,000kWh a year to produce the light you use. If you were to replace all the old-fashioned light bulbs with the modern low energy lamps, you might expect an 80% reduction – 800kWh. However you’d find about 60% of that 800kWh would get automatically chucked back in by your thermostat-controlled heating system. A typical heating system is only about 75% efficient. So the actual figure you end up with is more like 240kWh a year, rather than the 800kWh you expected.”

That number is only a rough guide, as most homes have gas central heating which is cheaper and less carbon intensive than an electric heating system. Meanwhile, the Institute of Lighting Engineers is considering changing its estimate of the energy savings represented by CFLs from 80% to 70%. This is because the power factor of CFLs is low, which means a utility company needs to use more energy to get these lights to work, which can also cause disruptions in the power network.

Ms Peck, of the Society of Light and Lighting, says CFLs have improved in recent years – they flicker less, and warm up faster. Nor should people worry that they contain mercury, as it is a very small amount. There are other energy-saving options, she says, such as halogen tungsten lights which are about 30% more efficient than incandescent bulbs.
And technology is developing fast, so it could be only a few years before people are lighting their homes with LED lights, which experts say have the potential to be more efficient than
CFLs.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/magazine/8406923.stm

Published: 2009/12/11 11:45:13 GMT
© BBC MMIX

BBC News – Why eco-light bulbs aren’t what they seem

Had the gentle-persons of the press actually paid attention to our campaign last year we may have managed to get the European legislation properly reconsidered, however it is now too little, too late.

I don’t know how long the links above will work but I will try and put PDFs of the articles in the news clippings for future reference

link to article “Dim thinking behind the new lightbulb laws”

Supermarket in Shenyang August 2009

If you have been following my commentary on the debate against the ban on incandescent lamps, a question I have raised has been “what will we have to pay for CFLi lamps when there is no choice?”  I have just returned from a short business trip to Shenyang, one of the large modern cities in China. While there I took the opportunity to visit a large supermarket to check out what the retail price was for lamps.

To set this in context I spent a lot of time with a native of Shenyang and we looked at a range of shops and products so that I could get at least a snapshot of prices for as wide a variety of  goods as possible. Currently the Yuan is approximately  1 Euro or 0.9 of a UKP. Trying to assess a median wage for China is pretty difficult as the range of wages is so vast compared to Europe so I asked about what a young professional might expect to earn and this will typically be between 1/3 and 1/2 of a similar placed person in Europe. This provides some guidance as to the relative expense of the various things we looked at.

Typically clothes are at a very similar price to that you would find in the UK. Obviously I did not get to see the full retail range but was looking at the kind of place that was full of the typical middle market shoppers. Many international brands are represented in the market, genuine products  sold through brand identified stores. As in Europe brands command a similar premium over non branded products and are as eagerly bought and flaunted.

Next I looked at consumer durables. Typically refrigerators, washing machines and other such White Goods were very similar in price to the UK. For many of these products international brands were well represented, specially Japanese. Again there was a premium on price however not that significant. Brown goods, televisions, computers, MP3 players and the like are similarly priced to the UK for internationally branded products. Here domestic products were somewhat cheaper. The biggest difference was in mobile phones. Here International brands were exactly the same as UK non-contract prices however there are many Chinese domestic brands that were very much cheaper while offering the facilities of higher specification International brand phones. Food and other consumables however were very much cheaper than UK market, most things being between 25% and 50% of UK retail prices.

So to give us a context for lamp prices generally speaking one would spend roughly the same proportion of your earnings on food, consumer durables and clothes will cost you twice as much. An interesting fact on housing is that around 70% of Chinese own or are buying their own homes. I wasn’t able to find out a great deal about prices however, as in the West debt is incurred principally on cars and housing.

So to our lamp prices. The first, and for me biggest surprise was to see Western manufacturers with such a significant market share of both incandescent lamps (made in Indonesia!) and CFLi. The fact that Philips lamps were priced cheaper than local companies and were being sold “special offer” at half the normal retail price really made me question the true costs and profit margins. Previously one European manufacturer, when directly asked what the cost price of typical CFLi lamps, replied that they had sold, profitably,  CFLi for 1 euro in large quantity. The “special offer” price in this supermarket was 9.90 Yuan, near enough 1 Euro but this is a retail price in a market with no power company subsidies.

Non special offer CFLi lamps and those sold by Chinese manufacturers ranged between 14 Yuan and 19 Yuan, roughly 1.4 to 1.9 Euro. Incandescent lamps, notably lower wattage than typical in Europe, around 2 to 4 Yuan, 0.2 to 0.4 Euro, roughly similar to cheap lamps bought in the UK.

So first observation: Lamps are roughly similar in real cost to Europe when considered against  the lower income levels, if anything they probably represent a larger proportion of income spent than in Europe.

Second observation: It seems that a larger profit margin is applied to lamps sold in Europe if you look at absolute pricing

Third observation: Are European lamp companies subsidising lamp sales in China? This is the very activity that they have complained loud and long about Chinese companies selling lamps in Europe, calling it “dumping.”  What are the motives of European lamp manufacturers for doing this, more self interestedly why are we in Europe paying such a significantly higher price for the same products?

Kevan Shaw August 28, 2009

The Stakeholder’s meeting was held in Brussels on the 26th May and was supposed to answer the comments that had been made. It was pretty clear that VITO, the company being paid to do the research and report writing, could not produce a coherent case for the banning of most Tungsten Halogen reflector lamps as there are no acceptable replacement technologies. They did, however invent a new metric, Lumens per Euro that combines initial cost, and estimate of the cost of energy used throughout the lamp’s life. Of course this metric works entirely in the favour of LEDs.

The final chapter and recommendations for the legislation were not provided, these will be provided in August with about three weeks to comment and the final report will be published on September 30th. At this point , unlike the first stage there will be no further comment nor any further meetings to address the stakeholder’s concerns. This will be a done deal. Given the risk of further extremely inappropriate legislation I find this somewhat unacceptable.

I urge you to log on to the eup4light website, register and have a look at the working papers and comments section. Please let me know if you have any difficulties registering and accessing this information and I will try and help. Meanwhile watch this space and I will report back once the final chapter is open for comments.

Kevan Shaw

It is now easier to comment on stuff, please do so’

Thanks, Kevan Shaw, webmaster

There are a good selection of public comments on the article here: