Goodness and light
New blog on the block, good, is, well, good. Today it quickly jumped to clarify that, despite the best efforts of climate change deniers and some politicians, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority will not be banning any lightbulbs. It’s dawn raids on households that still using incandescent lightbulbs have been deferred indefinitely. If you determinedly do not want to save either money or energy you shall not be required to.
Also, from a couple of weeks ago, this video:
Bookmark to:
June 26th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Good post on “good”, quite informative. However your statement that no bulbs will be banned is all but completely untrue. I quote:
“Will I still be able to buy traditional light bulbs from October 2009?
Not for long. Once a standard is introduced, no new stocks of traditional inefficient light bulbs would be able to be put on shelves for sale. You would only be able to buy them until existing stocks are sold out. EECA expects that it would take around 12–16 weeks for existing stock to be sold. ”
So they aren’t “banned”, you just can’t buy them. You can fly to Singapore to do your lightbulb shopping but can’t buy them here. If that isn’t a ban, what is?
It is good to see that there will be exclusions for some situations, but really the whole fuss is completely pointless. There are still situations where incandescents are the safest option (where a bulb may break and you don’t want to breathe mercury), most effective (workplaces where quality light is required) and cheapest (very infrequently used places and temporary installations, where you may not recoup your investment in a more expensive bulb). People are already moving to energy savers where they are cost-effective. Forget it and look at an issue that isn’t already resolving itself.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
FWIW, that little video is exactly the kind of thing that recent WWF-UK report criticises: the idea that tiny, painless steps will build on each other and eventually lead to the thorough-goingly changed lives and institutions which are required to meet the various crises we face.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Mr Dennis Says:
June 26th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
> So they aren’t “banned�, you just can’t buy them. You can fly to Singapore to do your lightbulb shopping but can’t buy them here.
I’m sure you could order them over the internet.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
frog said: …despite the best efforts of climate change deniers and some politicians, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority will not be banning any lightbulbs.
Yeah, I tried to tell the punters over at Kiwiblog (including David Farrar himself) the same last week, but some still argue (ridiculously) that “setting standards” = “ban”.
The lighting industry has bought into the Efficient Lighting Strategy. If the recalcitrants over at Kiwiblog really think there will remain a substantial market for incandescent bulbs as “heat sources”, then they should take the risk of importing them themselves and see how their business goes.
There will still be some specialty lighting requirements that only incandescent bulbs can meet. Those who wish to provide to that (very limited) market are free to do so.
June 26th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Mr Dennis said: So they aren’t “banned�, you just can’t buy them.
As I said above, the lighting industry is a partner in the strategy, and has agreed to not import or promote them, other than for specialist purposes.
If you think that is depriving the market of something it needs, Mr Dennis, feel free to import and market them yourself!
The bit I don’t get is why anyone thinks they need incandescent bulbs anyway. Higher power bills, greater carbon emissions, more mercury and particulates in the environment while we’re still using coal-fired electricity generation. They’ve got everything going against them!
Apart from nostalgia, I guess. Time to move on.
June 26th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
>>hinks they need incandescent bulbs anyway
We have some lamps that require them. The effect isn’t the same with the energy saver bulbs as they have a different light quality.
The minor extra cost doesn’t bother me.
June 26th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
“The bit I don’t get is why anyone thinks they need incandescent bulbs anyway. Higher power bills, greater carbon emissions, more mercury and particulates in the environment while we’re still using coal-fired electricity generation. They’ve got everything going against them!”
I need an incandescent bulb for my bedside lamp as it doesn’t face downwards. The problem with the eco-saver bulbs is that if they are not installed in a downward facing light fitting, the mercury heads toward the element and you have safety problems.
June 26th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
I have 5 fittings that take linear halogen bulbs. There are no fluorescent or LED bulbs that fit.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Old-style lamps? You mean like the one I have sitting on my bedside, unused, which you plug a lightbulb into? Is it really worth continuing to use those? Surely even a relatively cheap newer lamp would pay for itself in a couple of years anyway, especially as you don’t have to replace bulbs?
June 27th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Fittings as in screwed to the wall and wired into the house wiring, normally requiring a registered electrician to change, followed by a painter and plasterer.
Trevor.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Trevor29 - There are already high efficiency halogens on the market that last twice as long and use 2/3 less power. They are not CFLs they are halogens. Why would you object to using those?
BP - there are higher efficiency incandescents on the market (elsewhere) that will soon be brought into NZ. Same light, better performance. What’s the problem?
June 27th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Interesting Toad supports a near cartel of multinationals getting together with bereaucrats and deciding whether or not NZ consumers should be allowed to buy certain products…. (well that’s one way of looking at it)
The issue here is the ham fisted way it has been handled. For many people, the govt is legislating that they must buy a demonstrably inferior product instead of the one they have happily used for 100 years, and the claimed advantages are insignificant when compared to the cost, poor light performacne and cosmetics of the bulbs. In other words the ban has come too soon compared to consumer preference and product availability.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:50 am
“Inferior” depends on which way you look at it.
Our house is almost all CFL lit, and some lighting is clearly “inferior” to the incandescents they replaced, and some is vastly superior. Visitors comment on both aspects.
What is unarguable is that the humble GLS lamp turns less than 10% of the electricity it consumes into light, and is thus wasteful, both on the local scale (electricity bills) and more importantly, on the larger scale - that electricity that is wasted has to be generated somehow, and we, as a country, could do with using less electricity.
This could be phrased as simply as: if you want to keep using GLS lamps where they are not necessary, you are in favour of burning more coal.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Inferior is relative and so in the eye of the beholder. I think the public reaction to the MEPS speaks for itself in terms of whether the public thinks CFLs are superior or inferior on balance to GLS bulbs.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
frog - I have no objection to using higher efficiency halogens, if they fit and give out a similar light in terms of both colour and level. However I haven’t seen any higher efficiency halogens in the appropriate formats - 78mm and 118mm linear halogens. It would help if I could read the light output or efficacy on the packet, but they don’t normally include that. perhaps the ones I am already using are high efficiency.
Thanks to your recent links, I’ll pay a visit to Mitre 10 or Bunnings and see if I can get some replacements for the R63 60W GLS bulbs and 50W halogen downlight bulbs that EECA are subsidising. However there do appear to be some errors creeping into the EECA web site…
Trevor.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
http://www.energywise.govt.nz/yourhome/lighting/subsidies-on-efficient -lighting.html
lists a 42W R63 which replaces a 60W R80. How can it be a replacement if it is a different size. It would look horrible and let in the draft.
It also lists a 20W R50 to replace a 40W R80???
I’m still waiting for a good replacement for a 75W R80 bulb that puts out as much usable light. I tried one CFL and was disappointed - not only did it stick out more but it put out less light and was slow to reach full intensity.
Trevor.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Make that a 28W R50 to replace a 40W R80?
(This new laptop isn’t as easy to read or type on as my older power-hungry computer.)
June 28th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
The point as I see it is not that incandescents are better than fancy modern bulbs. Quite the opposite, in MOST situations. But not all.
The point is that although you may feel energy-savers are best for you, others may have situations where incandescents are better. I have outlined a few examples (which everyone arguing for the legislation has conveniently ignored) and others have pointed out more situations. Just because you think they are fine for you doesn’t mean modern bulbs are fine for everyone.
A ban is unnecessary. As I said before, people are already using energy-savers where appropriate, so this legislation will achieve little. I use them on my most frequently used lights. But I also have places where they are inappropriate. I would spend more, not less, on lighting if I was forced to buy energy savers for every fitting (and replace the lamps that won’t take them).
toad:
I’ll tell you why the lighting industry has “bought into” this strategy - because they stand to make a tonne of money. Think of all the expensive new bulbs to be purchased, new fittings to be installed to take them, new lamps to buy to replace the old-fashioned ones that only take incandescents… Far from saving money this will cost the country a mint. If I was in the lighting industry I would be licking my chops. I object because I am a consumer and see the folly in it, and object to being forced to spend MORE money on lighting than I currently do.
June 28th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
>>BP - there are higher efficiency incandescents on the market (elsewhere) that will soon be brought into NZ. Same light, better performance. What’s the problem?
No problem whatsoever, so long as the light quality is the same.
If it isn’t, then I won’t be switching over. The lamps I’m referring to are high-end, designer lamps.
June 29th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
It would help if the companies mentioned actually had the high-efficiency lamps. I’ve just returned from a wild-goose-chase to one of the companies and they hadn’t even heard of them or EECA.
Trevor.
August 2nd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I enquired at the other company mentioned, and they don’t have them either.
Trevor.
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:39 pm
I read in the Listener recently that the ban on importing low-efficiency incandescent bulbs only applies to bulbs under 150W. That means that I will still be able to buy 150W linear and 300W linear haolgen bulbs. It will also mean that I can buy a 150W Par38 floodlight bulb, but may not be able to buy a 120W Par38 floodlight bulb if I don’t need as much light, unless the latter meets the efficiency rules.
Unfortunately this last quirk is actually encouraging me to use more rather than less power.
Trevor.