Traditional light bulbs to be phased out
By admin on Oct 2, 2007 in Household Waste, Featured, Environment, News
Traditional high-energy incandescent light bulbs are to be phased out by British retailers under a new timetable agreed by retailers and energy companies. It has been estimated that this will save the equivalent of five million tonnes of CO2 a year.
Under the plan, announced by the Environment Secretary Hilary Benn, retailers will stop replacing their stock of the brightest 150 watt bulbs from January next year. 100 watt bulbs will be phased out by January 2009, 60 watt bulbs by January 2010, and finally 40 watt bulbs, and all remaining high-energy bulbs will be removed from the shelves by December 2011.
Although energy saving fluorescent bulbs have been available for quite some time, around 80% of bulbs sold in the UK at present are still high-energy bulbs. Many people are perhaps put off by the more expensive price of the bulbs, even though each bulb uses 75% less energy and lasts up to 12 times longer, reducing electricity bills by approximately £9 per year per bulb.
Philip Sellwood from the Energy Saving Trust has expressed his delight with this agreement. He said:
“If everyone in the UK installed three energy-saving light bulbs, we would save enough energy to power all the UK’s street lighting for a year.”
This plan will make a massive difference and will help the UK towards the Government set target of reducing carbon emissions by 60% by 2050. The increased demand for energy saving bulbs will help to reduce the cost, making them much more accessible to households throughout the UK.
Although the plan has been met with general approval, Greenpeace UK have argued that this step has been long overdue, and argued that the Government should go further by introducing tough mandatory efficiency standards, instead of relying purely on voluntary agreements.
Jason Pereira | Oct 2, 2007 | Reply
There are plenty of these in my house- guess we’ll have to upgrade soon! :D. The cost for the energy saving bulbs is worth it in the long run, shame they don’t have more of them here
Enki | Oct 2, 2007 | Reply
Yes, but ARE they actually greener? OK, they consume less power, but how much energy goes into making them compared to normal bulbs? And what about the mercury that goes into them - what happens to that after they are discarded?
As for lasting longer, I’ve just lost the third one in my hall light, and not one of them has lasted more than two years. Hardly ‘12 times longer’ than conventional bulbs. So in my case they’re certainly not saving me money!
fenderflip | Oct 2, 2007 | Reply
Jolly good old chaps! I think this is a GREAT idea! I wish every government would make it’s people more eco-friendly!
DJK | Oct 2, 2007 | Reply
One of my low-energy bulbs has been working for thirteen or fourteen years - takes a while to “warm up” now, but when on is as bright as it has ever been. Two of my others failed fairly quickly (within a couple of years), but not nearly as quickly as ordinary bulbs used to.
profxuk | Oct 2, 2007 | Reply
They are a good idea, it would work if they did them in all the sizes. I struggle to find the right ones for all my lighting needs
jake3988 | Oct 2, 2007 | Reply
To address Enki’s bogus issues:
A) Roughly the same amount of energy is used to produce them. Also, CFLs are fairly cool (120F). Whereas normal lights operate at burning hot temperatures. So… this will save on the air conditioning bill as well.
B) You calculate by hours used, NOT total time. The boxes are printed for 4 hours a day usage.
In fact, there’s a warranty still. If it burns out earlier than it should you can send it back for a refund!
C) The Mercury problem is solved by good ol’ fashioned recycling. The mercury content inside is tiny, if millions don’t recycle, we have a BIG problem.
D) Hopefully CFLs will eventually be phased out for LEDs. LEDs use even less energy than CFLs, and last nearly forever. And they don’t contain mercury.
Even at $100 a bulb for 100w equiv LED bulb, it STILL pays itself off because of how insanely cheap it is to run compared to a comparable bulb.
Enki | Oct 4, 2007 | Reply
Thanks for the responses, Jake.
Point A - I disagree about the energy going into manufacture. CFLs are many times more complex and have more components than incandescents, so it is simply unfeasible that they can be manufactured cheaper.
I’m in the UK and don’t have aircon, so that doesn’t apply here.
Point B - I *know* they go by hours. I don’t have my light fixtures wired through an hour meter, do I? I was going by empirical comparison with the tungsten bulbs I replaced with the CFL in the same fitting, all of which lasted approx. 3-4 years at an average burn time of 4 hours a day. No mention of warranty on my ones that I could see.
Point C - yes, it would be great if the mercury problem was solved by recycling, but how many of them actually get recycled? Most local authorities over here can’t even cope with recycling normal fluorescent tubes, never mind CFL’s. And that also depends on people making the effort instead of chucking them in the trash.
And what happens if you break the CFL? You have (admittedly small) amounts of mercury vapour in the air and up to 5ml of mercury on the carpet. I wouldn’t want that around pets or kids.
CFL’s are also largely produced in China, and the workers have minimal or zero protective measures against mercury contamination. So it’s OK for us, but not for those who make them?
There’s not enough space here to go into all the arguments, but I am a lighting designer so I *do* research these things. Have a look at this site if you want to learn the truth about these abominable things:
http://www.sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm
I’m with you on the LEDs - it won’t be too long before we these become cheap enough for domestic use. Let’s hope it happens before the world supply of tungsten runs out!
James | Oct 10, 2007 | Reply
Ikea sells the energy efficient bulbs for about $3 apiece. That’s where I get them.
Huffmast3r | Oct 16, 2007 | Reply
Totally agree. Got these all round my house, replacing one every 3-4 months. cost me £7 each, old style 50p each. what a rip-off!