3
Germans hoard incandescent bulbs
An energy-efficient compact flourescent light bulb, left, and an incandescent bulb.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: As of today, the European Union has turned off the power for most incandescent light bulbs. Retailers can sell off what they have in stock, but the classic frosted bulbs of 60 watts or more will soon be no more. The idea is to move consumers over to compact fluorescents. And the same change is coming here in 2012.
The light from flourescents is colder you could say, but they use a lot less energy. And they'll help the EU reduce greenhouse gas emissions too. Still, once you tell consumers anywhere that they can't have something, they want it. From Germany, Curt Nickisch reports now that the ban has touched off a run on incandescent light bulbs.
CURT NICKISCH: An elderly customer is raiding the light bulb rack in a Berlin hardware store. What should I get?, she asks her husband on her cell phone. Since all bulbs 60 Watts or higher have sold out, she buys what's left: a stack of 40-Watt bulbs.
Store saleswoman Birgit Seelmann says Germans have been hoarding the classic light bulb.
BIRGIT SEELMANN: First of all they think the light is better. The light from the new ones is more harsh. And so they'd rather keep the old ones.
Seelmann wishes she could order more, because they've been good for business. Sales of incandescents at some stores have quadrupled over the last week. But really only in Germany, not other European countries.
Silke Karcher from the German Environment Ministry blames the media here for inciting the run. She says the people who are squirreling away all these Gluehlampen -- literally: glow lamps -- are wasting their money, because the traditional bulb uses five times more energy than a compact fluorescents. And ultimately they'll pay more.
SILKE KARCHER: The electricity price will go up. I mean it's has been going up rather steeply over the last few years and that won't change. So I think many of these lamps that are hoarded now, they won't be used.
By the time the U.S. plans to phase out incandescents, manufacturers hope to make compact fluorescents glow just as warmly as the old bulbs.
In Berlin, I'm Curt Nickisch, for Marketplace.
Your report on compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) was sadly misleading. I am a professional lighting designer and this is a constant battle for our industry. Moving consumers to energy efficient light sources is an important component to world energy conservation. Unfortunately this report will serve to slow that progress by propagating a long held falsehood that fluorescent lamps are "cold". Fluorescent lamps are available in a wide range of "white colors" from the warmth of an incandescent lamp to the soft blue of a clear northern sky. When my clients view incandescent next to various colors of fluorescent, the client will almost always choose the fluorescent source as more natural and desireable. Unfortunately this report fell victim to the old stereotype of fluorescent lamps. One issue in the consumer market place is that in a effort to minimize cost, the selection and quality of the fluorescent phosphors is compromised. The available CFL selections may not be the best color and the consumer often is not not aware of the options (sadly this report didn't really help that situation). Hopefully as the use of CFL's increase these misguided notions will fade. There are many issues to consider when selecting a light source, CFL's are not for every situation, but let's at least start that decision process with accurate information...not old misinformed beliefs (and inaccurate news reports).
Hardly surprising about the hoarding...
Europeans, like Americans, choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (light industry data 2007-8)
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings - no point in banning an impopular product!
If new LED lights -or improved CFLs- are good,
people will buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn't mean that more energy using radio tubes were banned... they were bought less anyway.
Supposed savings don't hold up for many reasons:
Just a few examples here:
CFL Lifespan is lab tested in 3 hour cycles. That does not correspond to real life usage and numerous tests have shown real life type on-off switching reducing lifespan. Leaving lights on of course also uses up energy, as does the switch-on power surge with CFLs
Also, CFLs get dimmer with age, effectively reducing lifespan
Power factor: Few people know that CFLs typically have a power factor of 0.5 - that means that power stations use up twice as much power than what the CFL rating shows. This has to do with current and voltage phase differences set up when CFLs are used.
Although consumers do not see this on their meters, they will of course have to pay for it on their bills.
This is explained with official links including to US Dept of Energy here: http://ceolas.net/#li15eux
Heat benefit from using ordinary incandescent light bulbs
http://ceolas.net/#li6x
Room heat substantially rises to the ceiling (convection) and spreads downwards from there. Another half of more of supposed switch savings are negated in temperate climates, as shown via the above link with research references.
Conversely,
if energy use does fall with light bulb and other proposed efficiency bans and electricity companies make less money,
they’ll simply push up the electricity bills to compensate:
(not least in the USA where power companies often have their own grids with little supply competition)
Energy regulators can hardly deny any such cost covering exercise...
Emissions?
Does a light bulb give out any gases?
Power stations might not either:
Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
Low emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.
A direct effective way to deal with emissions in the USA (for all else they contain too, whatever about CO2):
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x
The Taxation alternative
A ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.
We are not talking about banning lead paint here.
Even for those who remain pro-ban, taxation to reduce consumption would make much more sense, since governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.
A few euros/dollars tax that reduces the current sales (EU like the USA 2 billion sales per annum)
raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.
It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.
http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html
However, taxation is itself unjustified, it is simply better than bans also for ban proponents, in overall emission lowering terms.
