Charity chocolates may not be what you think

More: continued here
Powered by SmartRSS

How much money can CFL bulbs really save on my electric bill? Pat Cafone from EnergySaverGuy.com demonstrates exactly how much money and power CFL’s save.

More: continued here

Old men and young girls… you know what’s going to happen.

More: continued here

I know, I know…you’re thinking…‘EnviroWoman haven’t you already found plastic-free CFL bulbs by NOMA that come packaged in cardboard rather than that annoying and uber-evil blisterpak stuff.‘

Well,I said it once, I’ll say it again….life is full of ironies. And this is another one of them.

And we’re not talking an itsy-bitsy-paramecium-sized irony. We’re talking a big, honkin’ Godzilla- Meets-Tyrannosaurus-Rex-sized irony – the Sequel.

Yup, get ready for it….you know what’s coming….CFL light bulbs contain plastic.

Yup, even the one’s that come packaged in cardboard.

Sad but true, there’s a big, bad wad of plastic at the base of each bulb. Disguised to look like porcelain…but evil plastic to the core.

And EnviroWoman cannot take any credit for making this discovery. Nope. It’s a fact Jack. Her brain capacity can really be quite itsy-bitsy-paramecium-sized at times….as she is so humbly discovering through this whole no-new-plastic year.

‘Cuz it wasn’t until Kevin commented on EnviroWoman’s blog about CFL bulbs containing plastic that EnviroWoman had the ‘No Sh#@ Sherlock’ revelation. As soon as Kevin’s words registered with EnviroWoman’s defective synapses she leapt from her laptop, made a bee-line for the storgage closet, delved into the stash of unopened CFL bulbs she had bought just days before, peeked inside the box….and there it was…plastic.

Crap, crap, and triple crap. Absolutely unbelievable!

But believe it just the same. NOMA’s CFL bulb is a veritable wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Plastic in something so eco-friendly. Ironic isn’t it? And guess what….they all have plastic bases, even the CFL bulbs packaged in blisterpak. A little plastic-zone in the CFL end-zone.

By now you’re probably thinking…‘Holy crap, EnviroWoman is gonna have to commit a whole new category of eco-sin afterall, and buy the lowly standard light bulb.’

And the answer to that would be…does the Pope have a balcony?

Indeedy my sweetie, EnviroWoman headed back to Canadian Tire with her eco-tail between her eco-legs, so she could exchange her NOMA bulbs for plain old General Electric LongLife General Purpose light bulbs (with no iota of plastic in them.)

You do know what this means? When EnviroWoman peruses all those 10 Things you Can Do to Save the Planetlists she’s not going to be able to proudly proclaim ‘Check, got that one covered’ for all ten items, ‘cuz Switch to CFL bulbs is on every one of those lists.

Rather, to avoid committing a plastic SIN, she must commit an eco-SIN.

Doesn’t that just drive a plastic stake through EnviroWoman’s little green heart.

Oh well, let’s look on the bright side….by not buying CFL bulbs, at least she won’t be contributing to any mercury leaching into her local landfill.

Lessons Learned:

• Assume nothing. Peek inside the box. Even though you look like a freak opening every lightbulb, toothpaste, and face cream package (just to name a few) to check if the contents contain any plastic…ya got to. When you make an eco-pledge, looking like a freak comes with the territory.

More: continued here

Though CFLs may give a little more light (lumen) per watt than incandescent lamps - a normal quality-quantity trade-off - the “5 times more” is only a nominal value for some of the best, top brand, bare tube ’single-envelope’ CFTs & CFLs:

a) in the beginning;
b) in optimal burning position, at optimal temperature & humidity, in optimal luminaire;
c) if they have a good power factor;
d) if the heat replacement effect is ignored;
f) if they last as long as promised (without losing too much output towards the end).

“During 2004, the Test Laboratory then a part of the Swedish Consumer Agency (now a part of Swedish Energy Agency) carried out its second ad hoc testing of 20 different CFLs from Osram, GE, Philips, IKEA and Sylvania. The testing authority concluded that there was no correlation between price and performance of the CFLs.The information on packaging was often deficient in terms of light quantity.

“Many models had light output claims that could only be achieved at the optimum operating temperature and/or in some optimum burning position that achieved an optimum internal temperature.

“Many light output claims were outright exaggeration, often by about 15 percent and in a few extreme cases by 25 percent.

“Furthermore, it was common that the indicated life was inaccurate.”[emphasis added] [1]

Other consumer tests have found the poorest performing bulbs in each test to give >15%, 19%, 22%, 33%, 34%, 65% less light than stated, while a few of the best gave slightly more (initially) and most somewhat under stated lumens. [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

1. Swedish Energy Agency: Compact Fluorescents in Residential Lighting
2. Vielen Sparlampen geht das Licht zu früh aus
3. 14 Sparlampen im Test
4. Råd & Rön, 1/2008
5. Ica-Kuriren, 3/2008
6. Öko-Test Themen-Special: Energiesparlampe versus Glühbirne
7. Die Tester: Energiesparlampen

More: continued here

Using cold-water laundry detergent or switching to CFL light bulbs may not seem like big ways of going green, but when 200 million Wal-Mart shoppers make those changes, the positive impacts on the environment can be huge. In the latest spot from Anonymous Content director Brett Morgen via The Martin Agency, Wal-Mart sends a thank you out to those doing their small part to make the world a greener place.

VIEW THE SPOT

More: continued here

With all the factors below added together, it should be more than obvious that CFLs a) don’t save as much energy as claimed; b) don’t give the same quality light as incandescent and halogen lamps; c) cannot be used in any light fitting (luminaires); and d) are not as environmentally friendly and safe as previously assumed.

Before dismissing these statements out of hand, please just take the time to read the referenced facts presented below. Then do the math yourself.

1. As shown under Conversion Charts, a good quality 11W CFL gives about as much light as a 40W incandescent bulb when real lumen output and expected light loss is taken into consideration.

2. As shown under Power Factor, a typical 11W CFL really uses an equivalent of 20 watts of energywhen power factor is added to the calculation.

3. As shown under Luminaire Limitations, when used in the wrong luminaire, at too high or too low temperature etc., output and/or life rate decreases further, though it’s difficult to give an exact number as this may vary so much with circumstances, e.g. 50% less light when used in recessed downlights and 1-89% or a mean of 40% outdoors at minus 10 degrees C. (So, either get the exact right info on which luminaire each CFL is appropriate for, or subtract some more from potential savings.)

4. As shown under Efficacy, poor quality CFLs will also give less light right from the start and/or lose more and sooner, so subtract 15-65% of estimated savings if you got one of those bargain CFLs at an outlet store and find that it doesn’t seem as bright as it should be or last as long as promised.

5. As shown under Heat Replacement Effect, if you live in a cooler climate zone and use CFLs indoors, the excess heat may or may not, depending on your heating system, lower heating bills but at least make the room warmer. Cut the savings number in half if you’ve got electric radiators with thermostats, less if you have water radiators or heat pump.

6. As shown under Production Energy Use, this is not even including the extra energy used for production of CFLs, shipping from the Far East, transportation to recycling facilities, and safe recycling of the mercury. Including these in the calculation, Gad Giladi D.E.S.A., M.F.A. FPLDA, in his calculation makes a rough estimate of a 1.1 or 1.3 total less energy comsumption of the CFL.

Even if we stop after the first 2 points and assume for the sake of simplicity that the rest is not applicable in an ideal case, we still only save half of the roughly 3% (= 1.5%) of domestic energy used for home lighting, and less if we bring in more of the above factors.

Is it really worth sacrificing both Light Quality in our homes, the Health & Wellbeing of some groups, plus risking massive a increase in Mercury pollution due to suboptimal recycling rate, when such small savings can easily be achieved by installing light sensors, dimmers, timers, remote controls or intelligent IR-sensor light switches like the Watt-Stopper, turning down heat one or two degrees, using fewer electric appliances, or simply turning lights off when not in use?

More: continued here

No lighting blog is complete without a CFL FAQ page. In this case it comes from a recently issued EU CFL FAQ defending the decision to phase out incandescent light despite the many problems and drawbacks with CFLs.

It is a very long list of concerns and complaints they have seen necessary to address, so I’ll only quote and comment some of the most relevant points here (not necessarily in original order). Surprisingly, EU actually confirms the crucial points I’ve described in this blog (CFL light loss, misleading conversion charts, poor power factor, heat replacement effect etc) but still defends the CFL.

Compact Fluorescent Lamp issues

EU FAQ Question:“III.3. Is it true that compact fluorescent lamps produce less light than incandescents?

EU FAQ Answer:“Compact fluorescent lamps can produce just as much light as incandescent bulbs. Consumers should check the product packaging to buy lamps of the appropriate power and light output. Currently, exaggerated claims are often made on the packaging about the light output of compact fluorescent lamps (e.g. that a 11-12 Watt compact fluorescent lamp would be the equivalent of a 60 Watt incandescent, which is not true).”

My comment: Correct. And this means that CFLs do not save “up to” 80% energy as is often claimed.

“The regulation will introduce restrictions on equivalence claims made on the product packaging, in order to keep the claims reasonable. Until then, for guaranteed satisfaction, a simplified method could be used to compare wattages when selecting the compact fluorescent lamp, by applying a 1:4 ratio (example: the light output of 15W compact fluorescent lamp is slightly more than the light output from a 60W incandescent). Even with this conversion ratio, compact fluorescent lamps are much more energy efficient than incandescent bulbs.”

Correct (just as I’ve been saying, see Conversion Charts). Good to see EU suddenly having realised this (after the ban was voted through on the premises that CFLs save “up to 80%”). After this insight, I expect to henceforth never again see the “80%” or “giving 5 times more light” in an EU document.

“Nevertheless, it is highly recommended to consider the light output of the lamps instead of their wattage if you want to compare them. It is this quantity (expressed in lumens on all lamps from 2010) that really describes the performance of a lamp, therefore it allows direct comparisons without a need for conversion. For example, a 15 W compact fluorescent lamp typically provides 799 lumens of light and a 60 W incandescent lamp 710 lumens. See also III.9.”

This is good advice and I hope it will become mandatory information on the package so as to make this comparison possible for consumers.

Life Span

“III.4. Is it true that compact fluorescent lamps have a much shorter life time than generally claimed?

“Untrue. There are indeed low quality compact fluorescent lamps that do not reach their normal life time (6000 h), but most respect the claimed values in average domestic use. The regulation introduces requirements on lifetime so that national market surveillance can eliminate free-runners.”

Many of the best CFLs have gotten better in this regard, if the right CFL type is used in the right luminaire so they don’t get overheated etc. But there are still a lot of CFLs out there which, for various reasons, don’t last as long as claimed (see Life Span).

Light Loss

“III.10. Do compact fluorescent lamps lose light as they age?

“It is true that during their long lifetime, compact fluorescent lamps will gradually emit less light than at the beginning (incandescent bulbs lose light too, but because of their short lifetime the loss is less noticeable).”

Manufacturer catalogues say nothing of this so I’ve called and asked. Philips Lighting say their incandescent bulbs may lose 5-10%, Osram says 5%, Sylvania says theirs lose no light.

“At the end of their life, compact fluorescent lamps often lose 30% of their initial light. This is why the regulation requires that when claims are made on the packaging of a compact fluorescent lamp concerning equivalence with an incandescent bulb (see III.3), the light output (and power) required from the compact fluorescent lamp is overstated. This way the user will get initially more light from the compact fluorescent lamp than from the incandescent bulb that is claimed to be equivalent to the compact fluorescent lamp on the packaging.”

I’m assuming this means requiring packages to recommend a 1:4 switch instead of 1:5 (as stated under III.3 above). A good start, but since an 11-12W CFL gave less light than an incandescent to start with, even using a 15W is often quite enough when light loss is taken into consideration. To stay on the brighter side, a 20W CFL may be more appropriate for the European market = 1:3 switch (see Conversion Charts for more details).

“The regulation also introduces a minimum requirement on light output at the end of life of the lamps. Nevertheless, over its life, the light output of the compact fluorescent lamp may decrease below the light output of the “equivalent” incandescent bulb. Most users should not notice the difference, those who do will have the option of replacing the compact fluorescent lamp earlier than its normal end of life.”

Which makes its practical lifespan shorter than claimed (the industry uses something called “economical life rate” which differs from actual life rate) and thereby also alleged savings.

“III.5. Is it true that compact fluorescent lamps should not be switched on/off frequently because it shortens their lifetime? For example, does it make sense to install them in a toilet which is used for 5 minutes 10 times a day?

“This functionality is also addressed by the regulation, requiring that compact fluorescent lamps should reach the claimed life time while being switched on/off once for every hour of operation. Where frequent on/off switching is likely, dedicated compact fluorescent lamps that can endure up to 1 million switching cycles”

In other words, this is a problem, and if one wishes to conserve energy by not leaving lights on, one has to buy a specially dedicated (and no doubt extra expensive) CFL that can tolerate a million switches?

“…or other energy saving light sources insensitive to switching can be used (such as halogen lamps which will also remain available).”

But most halogen lamps will be phased out too! This is one of the reasons they should not be regulatted. Halogen lamps don’t have the many limitations and huge quality variations that CFLs do.

Other CFL Limitations

“III.11. Is it true that compact fluorescent lamps do not work in cold temperatures?

“A standard compact fluorescent lamp will indeed lose a substantial part of its light output in cold temperatures. However, there exist compact fluorescent lamps designed specifically for outdoor use which can withstand cold temperatures without losing performance. Consumers should watch out for this information (required by the regulation for display on the packaging) when purchasing compact fluorescent lamps.”

Another detail consumers need to educate themselves on and watch out for. And pay extra for, of course.

“Improved halogen lamps will also remain available and can operate in any ambient temperature.”

Yes, those few low-voltage halogens that will still be permitted after the phase-out period.

“III.6. Is it true that compact fluorescent lamps cannot be dimmed?

“Untrue, there are compact fluorescent lamps on the market that can be dimmed, and there are dimmers that can dim any compact fluorescent lamp.”

Both of which are more expensive (a dimmable CFL costs around €20) and as of yet harder to find. Besides, dimming a CFL will not save any energy, only make the light even more grey and dull than it already was. Standard CFLs still can’t be dimmed.

“Consumers should carefully read product information concerning dimmability.”

Correct. One more thing consumers have to educate themselves on besides finding out which CFL type a) can’t be used with electronic timers, occupancy detectors or ceiling fans; b) won’t work or give less light at cold temperatures, c) will give less output and die sooner in closed luminaires, d) will give too few lumens compared to the recommended incandescent equivalent; e) will or won’t give the colour temperature desired, besides reading consumer tests to find out which brands and models will be more likely to give as much light as promised and last as long as promised (if used correctly).

This will be a requirement for each of EUs 500 million citizens if they want to get what they think they’re paying for, since the only reliable and good quality options will be phased out.

“Improved halogen lamps will also remain available and provide full dimmability in all circumstances.”

Only clear halogen retrofit bulbs with infrared coating and integrated low-voltage transformers (hardly on the market yet and most likely even more expensive than standard halogen lamps already are) will be permitted after the phase-out period. All frosted halogen retrofit lamps will be banned from September. This doesn’t leave consumers a lot of choice when it comes to an incandescent alternative.

“III.7. Do compact fluorescent lamps really take longer to switch on and warm up to full light output than incandescent lamps?

“True. In order to guarantee an acceptable level of service with any compact fluorescent lamp, the regulation introduces minimum requirements on switch-on and warm-up times. Switching on a compact fluorescent lamp shall not take more than 2 seconds, and it should reach 60% of its full light output within one minute.”

60% within a minute? But what if one wants 100% immediately? (Like one gets from those incandescent and halogen lamps now being phased out…)

“However, there are now compact fluorescent lamps on the market that come close to incandescent bulbs for these performance parameters from the point of view of the average consumer. If these are features consumers are concerned about, they should look out for the information on the product packaging, where the manufacturers will be required to display warmup-times.”

Ah, another vital piece of information the consumer will have to search for! And probably pay extra for. And these still won’t reach 100% instantly, since that’s not possible with CFL technology.

“III.9. Is it true that compact fluorescent lamps do not always fit in the luminaires housing incandescent lamps?

“Compact fluorescent lamps exist today in many sizes and shapes to replace incandescent bulbs. Where there is indeed too little room for any compact fluorescent lamp to fit in, improved halogen bulbs could be used to replace incandescent bulbs.”

Which may be too hot or glaring and are not always the most appropriate option even if they give an equivalent high quality light.

Power Factor

“III.16. Compact fluorescent lamps cause losses in the electrical distribution grid due to a poor power factor. Incandescents do not. Is this taken into account when assessing their energy efficiency?

“According to the technical study ordered by the Commission to prepare for the regulation on household lamps (http://www.eup4light.net/) even if we assume they have a poor power factor, compact fluorescent lamps are overall much more energy efficient than incandescents.”

Translation: “Yes, we have been made aware of this uncomfortable fact, but since CFLs still save something, it doesn’t matter if it’s 50% rather than 80%.”

“Besides, the regulation on household lamps requires a minimum power factor for compact fluorescent lamp lamps.”

So all lamps with below PF 0.85 will be banned from September…? Or just a similar recommendation as for Energy Star: a minimum of 0.5 in order for manufacturers to get the EU energy label by claiming to pass this generous requirement? Which means that such a CFL will use about twice as much energy as is marked with (see Power Factor).

Heat Replacement Effect

“III.17. Incandescent bulbs produce a lot of heat, compact fluorescent lamps much less. When compact fluorescent lamps replace incandescent bulbs in a room, does the increased heating need in the room negate the energy saving through the lower consumption of lighting?

Here we get all the standard counter-arguments (see Heat Replacement Effect) listed together:

“Though it is accepted that incandescent lamps emit heat, incandescent bulbs are not an efficient way to regulate indoor temperature.”

And I repeat that people don’t use lights to regulate indoor temperature but to see what they’re doing.

“The location on the ceiling is inefficient”

Invalid argument since heat circulates and most homes have lights lower down in the room.

“electrical heating itself is inefficient compared to other forms of heating (e.g. gas or heat pumps),

Correct, but see above about people using lamps for seeing, not for heating.

“the heating is unnecessary in the summer period and may even result in increased cooling needs, and not all rooms needing lighting need also heating. Because of all these factors, heat from lighting is considered as energy loss rather than useful energy.”

In the summer it is usually lighter so less artificial light is needed. And studies on the heat replacement effect have taken seasonal variations and other factors into consideration when making their calculations.

“Nevertheless, when it comes to quantifying the improvement potential of the switch from incandescent lamps to compact fluorescent lamps, the UK Market Transformation Programme recommends using correction factors [3], to take into account what they call the “heat replacement effect”. But even these factors remove only 20 to 30% of the estimated savings in energy costs and CO2 emissions, meaning that the balance of savings achieved is still substantial both for the consumer and for the environment.”

Hm, let’s see what the study referred to actually says:

“The magnitude of the heat replacement effect for lights in a typical UK dwelling”

“Comparing cases 2 and 3 shows that for the dwelling simulated in this study, 0.363 MWh/yr of electricity is saved by replacing tungsten lamps with CFLs. Because of this, the annual heat requirement increases by 0.220 MWh/yr. This implies a heat replacement factor of 60.6%. However, an allowance should be made for lighting energy used in external lighting. The factor fin (95%) is therefore applied, leading to a heat replacement factor R of 57.6%.

“In terms of delivered energy savings, assuming a 70% efficient gas heating system provides the extra heat, 100% / 70% = 1.429 times the quantity of missing heat from lights will be required to heat the dwelling to the same level. Using the formula from [1] the delivered energy saving factor is thus 17.7%. In other words, only 17.7% of the gross delivered energy saving will be achieved in practice.

“In terms of fuel costs, replacing tungsten lamps with CFLs reduced electricity consumption by 0.363 MWh/yr and increased space heating consumption by 0.220 MWh/yr. However, since electricity is more expensive than gas (by a factor of about 4 in the UK), the gross cost saving will not be so heavily reduced when including the effect of heat replacement. In this case, 84.4% of the gross cost saving will be achieved.

“Similarly, in terms of carbon savings, because electricity is significantly more carbon intensive than gas in the UK (by a factor of 2.2), the gross carbon saving is not as heavily reduced when converting to a saving net of heat replacement. Simulation cases 2 and 3 suggest 61.4% of the gross carbon saving will be achieved.”[emphasis added]

Interesting way of focusing on cost and CO2 and conveniently omitting the part about “only 17.7% of the gross energy saving will be achieved in practice”. (And in this simulation they have of course calculated with maximum claimed savings for CFLs, as pro-CFL studies always do.)

“The improved retrofit halogen bulbs that will remain available only provide 25-45% energy savings compared to incandescent bulbs (whereas compact fluorescent lamps save up to 80%), which means they still radiate much of the energy they use as heat rather than light.”

But the above study just confirmed that some of that heat helps keep heating bills down in the UK and cooler climate countries. And CFLs still don’t save “up to 80%” - especially not with heat replacement effect taken into consideration!

Light Quality

“III.8. Isn’t the shape of compact fluorescent lamps ugly and do they not produce unpleasant light (also in terms of colour rendering, colour temperature and light spectrum)?

“Consumers usually find modern quality CFLs perfectly suitable for everyday tasks and aesthetically pleasing.”

No they don’t. True that many men don’t seem to notice a difference, but then men often have poorer colour vision than women (but better night vision). Most women I’ve asked or read comments from - and quite a few men too - do not like fluorescent light or CFLs at all. (Yes, this is anecdotal but so is the EU claim to the contrary.)

“There may be some substandard compact fluorescent lamps on the market, but those will be removed through the functionality requirements of the regulation.”

But according to recent consumer tests, over half of the CFLs tested still gave a strange colour. Besides the super-expensive ‘full-spectrum’ CFLs, the CRI around 80-83 and will not improve since that means adding more expensive rare elements (which have to be mined out of the ground somewhere; not exactly improving the environment).

“Improved halogen lamps will also remain available and produce exactly the same light quality as incandescent bulbs.”

Correct about quality, incorrect about availability (see previous comment above).

“Overall, the perception of shape and light quality is quite subjective, however there are parameters that can be measured. On some of these parameters, CFLs are actually doing better than incandescent bulbs and halogens.”

This is a direct lie. Not even manufacturers’ own catalogues or anyone in the lighting business claim such a thing. CRI values (= colour rendering properties) are always highest for incandescent & halogen light, and spectral power distribution diagrams show why this is so (see Light Quality).

“Modern CFLs come in a variety of sizes and shapes approaching that of incandescent bulbs. The outer lamp envelope that hides the small twisted lighting tubes has become commonplace, and makes CFLs resemble frosted (non-transparent) incandescent bulbs in appearance.”

Correct, except the resemblence is only in shape, not in light quality. And the smaller/lower watt CFLs have poorer performance.

Colour rendering

“In order to ensure proper colour rendering (ability to reproduce the colours of the objects lit) for CFLs, the draft regulation introduces a minimum requirement on this product parameter.”

Unless the minimum is set at CRI 97 (which will make the CFLs many times more expensive) and poorer quality CFLs will be banned - both of which are highly unlikely - this promise means nothing.

Colour temperature

“CFLs can be produced with different colour temperatures (warm/cold) depending on consumer needs, whereas incandescent lamps can only provide warm white light.”

As stated earlier, special incandescent and halogen lamps come in different colours too, and LEDs come in even more colour varieties, so this feature is not unique to CFLs.

“The draft regulation requires the indication of colour temperature on the lamp’s packaging, so consumers should watch out for this information.”

Good. But colour temperature for non-glowing light sources is only an approximation when compared to a blackbody radiating light source such as an incandescent lamp. It may or may not look like real daylight or incandescent light, depending on the quality of the CFL and relative success in mimicking the real thing.

Light spectrum

“The light spectrum of incandescent bulbs resembles that of natural daylight in that it is a continuous curve with no abrupt changes across the spectrum of colours. On the other hand, natural daylight is as strong at the blue and ultraviolet wavelengths as at the yellow and red wavelengths, whereas light from incandescent bulbs has very little blue component and an extremely high proportion of red and infrared component (therefore their light is very yellow and most of it is emitted as heat).”

Correct. Incandescent light (at wattages normal for indoor use) is like sunlight towards sun set. This warm golden-white light is often preferred for home use (this is why CFLs try to copy it, with varying degrees of success) and makes people and natural materials look their best. And despite being warm in tone, the incandescent spectrum includes enough blue to make blue colours fully visible (unlike fluorescent light which doesn’t let the eye see all wavelengths).

“Compact fluorescent lamps differ from natural daylight in that they do not have a continuous spectrum. They emit a high amount of light at certain wavelengths and almost nothing at adjacent wavelengths.”

Correct. Which is what often makes a room look strange, dull and unappealing when lit solely by CFL light.

“However, in terms of the proportion of light emitted within the blue and red wavelength ranges, there are compact fluorescent lamps that are able to reproduce daylight more precisely than incandescent bulbs.”

Correct. But ‘full-spectrum’ daylight CFL is a more expensive specialist product, just like there are Solux halogen daylight lamps which have even higher quality. These special products have little to do with the standard, reasonably affordable, CFL that people can buy in their local supermarket and which we are discussing as replacements for standard incandescent bulbs.

Economy

“Q: III.12. Aren’t compact fluorescent lamps much more expensive than incandescent bulbs?

“Compact fluorescent lamps are actually much cheaper than incandescent bulbs if you consider also lamp life time and costs related to electricity consumption while using the lamps.”

The original sales argument repeated once again. Is this a CFL FAQ or a CFL ad?

“During the lifetime of one compact fluorescent lamp you will have used 6-10 incandescent lamps. And the compact fluorescent lamp will consume one fourth / one fifth of the electricity consumed by incandescents, another cost saver.”

I thought the “one fifth” argument was not going to be used anymore since it was already established earlier in this document that no CFL saves that much?

“A six-year-life energy-saving bulb would save about €60 during its lifetime (80W incandescent versus 20W compact fluorescent lamp). This is based on an assumption of 3 continuous burning hours per day, for an energy cost of 0,15 €/kWh.

There are no 80W incandescent bulbs on the European market. Comparisons have to be made between existing lamp wattages, so make that 75W.

Double envelope and poorer quality CFLs of course save less since they don’t give as much light in the beginning and lose more as they age. If one has to replace the CFL sooner due to light loss, that too cuts savings. Same of one gets a CFL that gives up sooner than promised, or is used in the wrong luminaire. One may also be charged extra by one’s utility to compensate for poor power factor, and pay a little extra for the heat loss in cool climates etc.

So, net savings are often less than promised, especially with a poor quality CFL. (It is actually more economic to pay more for a brand CFL, if you don’t mind fluorescent light.)

Total Energy Use

“III.13. More materials and energy are needed to produce a compact fluorescent lamp than an incandescent bulb, and it also results in more waste at the end of life. Does this not outweigh the benefits of its energy efficiency?

“According to the technical study ordered by the Commission to prepare for the regulation on household lamps (http://www.eup4light.net/), the impact of energy savings during the use of a compact fluorescent lamp clearly outweigh the environmental impact of its production and its end-of-life. Therefore using them rather than incandescent bulbs reduces the overall energy use and the environmental impact of lighting.”

I’m sure those calculations were made by CFL proponants on the premises that CFLs “give 5 x more light” and “save 80% energy”, lose no output with age, don’t have poor power factor etc. Others who have made similar calculations have come to very different conclusions (see Production Energy Use).

Mercury

“III.14. Is it true that because of high energy use at start-up, compact fluorescent lamps have to remain switched on for 45 minutes before they bring any energy saving at all?

“No. The energy use of compact fluorescent lamps in the first 2 to 3 seconds of their operation is slightly higher, but after that their power uptake is stabilised. In practice, they provide energy savings right from the moment they are switched on.”

Probably correct.

“III.15. Compact fluorescent lamps contain mercury, a hazardous material, incandescent bulbs do not. If more compact fluorescent lamps are used, does it not mean more mercury pollution in the EU?“

“Mercury is present in compact fluorescent lamps in such a small amount that during its lifetime a compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) will have saved more mercury emissions from electricity production in coal power plants (compared to the mercury emissions related to the incandescent bulbs’ electricity need) than is contained in the CFL itself.”

The usual flawed PR-argument recycled once more (see Mercury).

“Moreover, CFLs should be recycled according to EU legislation already in place.”

Should be does not mean that all will be.

“Mercury is an important component of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) that plays a key role in their energy efficiency and also other parameters such as lifetime and warm-up times. There are up to 5 milligrams (0,005 grams) of mercury contained in a CFL (compared to 0,5 g in dental amalgam filling or several grams in older thermometers). The 5 mg limit is set in the Restriction on Hazardous Substances Directive (2002/95/EC).”

But 5 mg x millions of CFLs still adds up to tons of mercury in landfills if not recycled properly. The fact that dental amalgam and old thermometers contain more mercury does not in any way make CFL mercury less of an environmental hazard, only makes it seem as if EU has some vested interest in downplaying the significance of mercury in CFLs.

“Compact fluorescent lamps have been widely used in European homes in the past decade, they will not be introduced by this regulation.”

But they will be more or less mandated by banning its most popular and affordable competitors. The whole idea with this ban is to boost CFL sales, whether consumers want them or not. And that CFL sales have been permitted for a decade without adequate information and routines for recycling is not exactly a point in favour of the CFL lobby, but a scandal in itself as who-knows how many CFLs have already ended up in landfills?

“Most office and public buildings, and also most streets have been equipped for the last 50 years with fluorescent and high-intensity discharge lamps containing mercury (often much more than compact fluorescent lamps).”

Correct, but linear FL tubes in offices are used in ceiling luminaires and street HIDlamps are placed far above pedestrian level, neither which can be knocked-over or thrown away with household garbage, so there is little health risk to citizens, and businesses & public agencies usually have well-established recycling routines for their burned-out lamps. So the fact that other types of mercury-containing lamps have been used safely in non-residential environments is not as reassuring as it’s meant to sound, and has absolutely nothing to do with home lighting or CFLs (which is what is being discussed here).

“The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (2002/96/EC) provides for the collection and recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipments (WEEE), including lighting equipment such as CFLs. The Directive sets out collection requirements for all WEEE, specific treatment requirements and a recycling target for gas discharge lamps (including CFLs). According to the requirements, mercury needs to be removed from the collected lamps through treatment, and their recycling should meet an 80% minimum target. Once consumers learn that they have to take back their burned-out CFLs to collection points just as they do with batteries, the mercury content will be recycled and not released to the environment.”

“Member States have to ensure that users of electrical and electronic equipment are given the necessary information about the requirement not to dispose lamps as unsorted municipal waste and to collect such waste separately, as well as about the return and collection system available to them. After the regulation is adopted, the Commission will remind the Member States of the need to reinforce the recycling of CFLs on their territory.”

I’m sure some member states already have or will be able to put time, money and effort into informing their citizens and establishing good recycling routines, while other member states may have more pressing matters on their agenda and few funds to finance such operations with. And even with successful information campaigns and easily accessible recycling facilities, states still can’t guarantee that every individual will comply. The only way to ensure no more mercury in landfills is to not allow mercury-containing products on the market if there exists a mercury-free alternative.

“The Commission also proposed to recast the WEEE Directive on 3 December 2008, so that the collection target for all WEEE is increased and the recycling target for gas discharge lamps is set at the level of 85%. This proposal will now go to co-decision with the Council and the European Parliament.”

Good target but target still doesn’t mean 85% will be recycled (see Recycling).

“From a life-cycle perspective, the proposed regulation is in any case the most eco-efficient solution. Indeed, according to the technical study ordered by the Commission to prepare for the regulation on household lamps (http://www.eup4light.net/), even in the worst possible case that a CFL goes to the landfill, during its lifetime it will have saved more mercury emissions from electricity production in coal power plants (compared to the mercury emissions related to the incandescent bulbs’ electricity need) than is contained in the CFL itself, so the overall mercury pollution balance will be positive.”

Again assuming that a) all energy for light bulbs comes from coal (which is not the case) b) CFLs save 80% energy (which it doesn’t) and c) that reducing a disputable fraction of the 3% of domestic energy that is used for lighting will reduce emissions from coal fired power plants better than mandating filtering systems for EU power plants that would deal directly with the coal fired part of the remaining 97%.

“III.21. Compact fluorescent lamps contain mercury, which is a highly toxic substance. Do compact fluorescent lamps represent a danger to health because of that?

“The mercury content cannot escape from CFLs, except in the event of accidental breakage of the lighting tubes. In that case less than 5 milligrams of mercury could be released.”

Correct. And this is obviously too much, or safety guidelines would be unnecessary:

“The draft Ecodesign regulation requires manufacturers to explain on their websites how consumers should clean debris in case the CFL’s tubes accidentally break, and to include on the packaging of each lamp the link to online explanations. Such an explanation is already available on the website of the European Lamp Companies Federation.”

Good. (Though one may wonder how many accidents have happened before these safety recommendations were issued.)

“Buying commonly available CFLs with an outer non-breakable lamp envelope is another way to address the issue of mercury leakage in case of accidental lamp breakage, but the envelope slightly lowers (about 10%) their efficacy.”

This doesn’t eliminate the risk but lowers it (and makes the light less glaring and unattractive).

“Consumers who would particularly worry about mercury can choose alternative technologies such as improved halogen lamps.”

See previous comments about the limited availability of halogen…

About the incandescent ban

“III.2. By banning incandescent bulbs, are you forcing the use of compact fluorescent lamps? Are they not bad alternatives to incandescent bulbs?

“The best compact fluorescent lamps today can offer lighting functionalities approaching and in some respect surpassing that of incandescent bulbs (e.g. higher variety of colour temperatures).”

There are incandescent lamps too that come in ‘peach’, ‘cream’, ‘daylight’ etc. so this is not unique to CFLs. But this ‘colour variety’ thing evades the questions, to which the answers are: yes - EU is forcing the use of CFLs, and yes - they are bad alternatives to incandescent bulbs, for all the reasons listed above and below and now confirmed by this very EU FAQ.

“In order to guarantee a minimum quality for compact fluorescent lamps on the market, the regulation also establishes requirements on product functionality (lifetime, warmup times, colour rendering etc.).”

This still won’t make them start immediately or have perfect colour rendering like incandescent and halogen lamps - since this is not possible with flourescent light technology. Nor will retailers be prohibited from importing and selling poor quality CFLs. EU will just give a quality stamp to those CFLs that are reasonably decent.

“Requirements for adequate information provision on the product functionalities will also ensure that consumers can make informed choices. See the other questions in section III for the details.”

Good initiative, but consumers can hardly make “informed choices” if the best quality alternatives are taken off the market!

“Compact fluorescent lamps will not be the only lamps allowed on the market after the phase-out of incandescent bulbs. Compact fluorescent lamps produce similar light to frosted (non-transparent) incandescent lamps,”

Similar but not the same. The main similarity is the frosted outer bulb on CFLs that have a double envelope. But fluorescent light doesn’t radiate and glow like incandescent light does, as it’s a ‘dead’ chemical light.

“but different light from clear (transparent) lamps which are bright point light sources. In order for such lamps to continue to exist, the regulation allows transparent improved (class C according to the lamp energy label) halogen bulbs on the market.”

Correct. They may do to replace some clear bulbs, but are more glaring and may not be a suitable as replacement for frosted bulbs.

“Improved halogen bulbs provide exactly the same type and quality of light as incandescent bulbs or conventional halogens, they come in the same shapes and appearance, and fit into all existing luminaires. They start and provide their full light output as soon as they are switched on, and they are insensitive to frequent switching. These lamps can be useful also for consumers who are looking for alternatives to compact fluorescent lamps for other reasons (sensitivity to light or aesthetic considerations such as need for small lamps in decorative luminaires). Improved halogen bulbs for luminaires using incandescent bulbs are already available on the market, however their use is not yet widespread. Large manufacturers have them in their product portfolio (look for lamps such as ‘HaloLux Classic ES’, ‘EcoClassic30′ or ‘MasterClassic EcoBoost’).”

Correct. But according to the decision taken, the clear ones will only be permitted for a few more years. And the frosted Halogen Energy Savers will be forced off the market now in September - exactly one year after their market introduction!

If this incandescent ban is not revoked, frosted retrofit Halogen Energy Savers must still be permitted indefinitely, or until an even better alternative has been created.

Frosted bulbs don’t give less light than clear bulbs so there is no reason whatsoever to ban frosted other than to force people to buy CFLs against their will. Forcing consumers to buy a mercury-containing product they don’t want - because it is an inferior quality product - is clearly a gross violation of personal freedom!

“I.8. People are likely to stock up incandescent bulbs when they hear about the regulation. Does this not weaken the impact of the measure?

“Communication to consumers about available equivalent alternatives to incandescent bulbs (such as improved halogen bulbs) could help prevent much of the stocking of bulbs. Consumers will realise in the end that the alternatives provide substantial savings and have equivalent light quality to incandescents. They might decide not to use their old energy-wasting bulbs, or to install them only in rarely used places such as cellars. Moreover, the estimate of 15 Mt CO2 savings was calculated for the year 2020, by then any delaying effect of “hamstering” will have disappeared.”

That’s 11 years away! We’ll be frying, freezing or drowning anyway by that time unless we do something about the real problems instead of hunting droplets in the energy ocean… like the 1% used for home lighting.

“I.9. Is it not disproportionate to ban incandescent bulbs from the market? Would it not be better to make use of other measures to achieve the switch (such as voluntary restrictions as in the UK, information to the public or taxation)?

The draft regulation introducing minimum efficiency requirements (rather than a voluntary approach) is in line with the principle of proportionality. There is clearly a market failure in moving to the alternatives providing the least life cycle cost to the consumers. Since 1998, household lamps have to indicate their energy efficiency on the packaging, thanks to implementing measure 98/11/EC of the Energy Labelling Directive (92/75/EEC).

Those labels that recommend an erroneous 1:5 switch adressed earlier in III.3? Even such permitted exaggerations from manufacturers, utilities and governmental agencies alike obviously didn’t impress consumers enough to replace their top quality light with the inferior CFL. Perhaps because they would rather save on something else than compromising on light quality?

In spite of the clear indications provided on the packaging and campaigns in many Member States, consumers have failed to direct their choices to the more efficient lamps offering equivalent service, and have been largely sticking to incandescent bulbs. This is due to the fact that the purchase price difference between incandescent bulbs and more efficient alternatives constitutes a psychological barrier, even if the higher initial investment pays off within a year and brings substantial (but much less visible) savings over the life cycle. Another deterring factor has been the sometimes poor quality of the so-called economic lamps placed on the market without being subject to quality requirements. This market failure can only be tackled with mandatory requirements on the efficiency level of all household lamps placed on the market in the EU.

What? Manufacturers fail to produce a decent enough alternative and it is considered a “market failing” that people don’t like the inferior product and refuse to replace all of their lamps despite such an unprecedented global PR-campaign from governmental agencies, utilities and environmental organizations, including free giveaways, subsidies, events, commercials, articles, brochures - and most people nowadays really wanting to be green - so this has to be tackled with “mandatory requirements”? Doesn’t that go against the very idea of the free market and consumer choice?

“This also serves the interests of the internal market, as voluntary restrictions or taxes introduced in certain Member States or by some retailer groups in Europe would create barriers to the free movement of goods. They would have different efficiency limits and timing of the restrictions.

Doesn’t EU mandate VAT rates for all member countries? If the EU can legislate about a universal bulb ban, they can just as easily legislate lower VAT for A-rated energy products and higher for E-rated products.

“In addition, for taxation to be an effective deterrant, it should multiply by 10 the price of incandescent bulbs.”

Feel free to try. I’m sure many would be willing to pay just to still have the choice, and be grateful to the EU legislators for being reasonable instead of unreasonable, while those who can live with lower quality would probably buy LED or CFL instead if prices were similar. Win-win for everyone.

“Still the main point is that efficient lighting as provided for in the draft regulation is a way to save energy, to limit CO2 emissions and to help consumers save money without loss of functionality.”

As we have seen above, the CFL doesn’t save as much as claimed of either and functionality is lost for all those who for various reasons need top quality incandescent light and cannot tolerate CFL light (see Health & Wellbeing).

As this is not in accordance with the draft regulation and the decision seems to have been taken on the premises that CFLs “save up to” 80% energy and lighting constituting 20% of home energy use when it is only around 3%, this should be enough grounds to revoke the ban and just keep educating people on energy saving measures.

More: continued here

As CFLs now account for 25% of light bulbs purchased in the US, mercury content in CFL bulbs is becoming a common concern, and rightfully so, as mercury exposure can cause severe health consequences: brain and kidney damage, and birth defects. But since mercury pollution is nothing new, and certainly didn’t start with the invention and production [...]

More: continued here

I’ve finished month #5 living the ‘no-new-plastic’ pledge. And I gotta say….it’s been a bad plastic month.

I’ve almost doubled the size of my plastic shrine and it could have been prevented if I had just avoided two PlasticBlondeMoments.

PlasticBlondeMoment #1 & #2

The first ‘blonde’ moment occurred when I ordered a glass-blown necklace from an artisan shop in Victoria and forgot to tell them ‘Don’t package it in plastic.’ When it arrived in the mail in afoam pack envelope I’m sure the whole neighborhood could hear EnviroWoman barking ‘Crap, crap and triple crap.’

And I had no one to blame but myself.

And if that wasn’t bad enough…I had another PlasticBlondeMoment at that very same instant. Because half way through filleting the plastic out of the envelope to add it to the plastic shrine EnviroWoman realized….‘I should have just sent it back and told them ‘thanks but no thanks…please reuse this envelope.’

So that’s my strategy going forward…Return to Sender. I’ve been using it on junk mail (especially those with plastic windows) so why not on other things.

PlasticBlondeMoment #3

There was another PlasticBlondeMoment. It happened when EnviroWoman was distracted at a social engagement and realized she had been drenching her sushi in a plastic dipping sauce cup destined to be thrown away after EnviroWoman finished having her way with it.

But instead, that wee cup has taken up residence in EnviroWoman’s plastic shrine. See how happy it looks with all its plastic buddies!

Do not despair my sweets! Those three PlasticBlondeMoments increased EnviroWoman’s plastic awareness and helped avoid a major disaster.

Averting Disaster

As mentioned in April’s Progress Report, MyLittleCar had been the victim of a ‘hit and leave a note’. When I took it into the body shop for a repair estimate I told them about my No-New-Plastic-Pledge and they said ‘No problemo. The plastic door trim isn’t damaged enough to warrant replacing and we don’t need to use any plastic when fixing and repainting the door.’

Excellent! The Eco-Gods were smiling on EnviroWoman.

But when EnviroWoman finally took MyLittleCar in to get fixed, and had her wits about her enough to ask for a second time ‘Are you sure you guys can honor my No-New-Plastic-Pledge’ she was told…. ‘Sorry, we were wrong, the entire car will be covered with plastic when painted, and this plastic will be thrown out.’

EnviroWoman took a stand ‘Well, in that case MyLittleCar will have to wait until next year to get fixed…’cuz there is no way I am adding a whole car-load of polypropylene to my plastic shrine.’ She turned on her ruby red slippers and high-tailed it out of the body shop.

She was so proud of herself she had to bend over and check between her legs to see if she had grown balls.

But when she jumped into MyLittleCar and glanced in the rear view mirrow, she noticed the words TotalWhackedOutEcoFreak were magically and officially stamped on her forehead.

Please forgive me MyLittleCar.

RudeAwakenings

Let’s see….the inside of Pepsi cans are sprayed with plastic, soda in glass bottles have plastic liners under the caps…beer has the same problems. Metal toothpaste tubes have plastic liners….as do most canned foods.

Ooeee, and even CFL bulbs contain plastic (oh yeah…you’re gonna hear about that one, watch for the June post on CFL Light Bulbs #2 coming soon).

And anything in a glass jar also has plastic under the lid to help seal the jar. Yup folks, it’s everywhere.

EnviroWoman has resigned herself to the fact when she buys anything in glass jars (which she’s been limited to) she’ll have commit a MINOR SIN because of the plastic cap seal and sometimes even the cap itself. Bummer, huh?

Sayonara

In January EnviroWoman waved goodbye to meat substitutes, crackers, chips and The Body Shop. In March, it was dishwashing liquid. In April she gave the boot to her beloved Pepsi and ended her affair with Dr. Oetker’s frozen pizza

In May she said goodbye to highlighters and….it really hurts this GirlyGirl to say this next part…EnviroWoman kissed nail polish goodbye. Yuppers, it’s made of plastic. I first weaned the fingernails. Then two weekends ago, I bit the bullet and removed the last red remnants from my toenails. Look at those bland, white freaky little digits staring up at me!! They look totally naked, and ugly and very, very boring. But they ARE plastic-free.

And today, May 31st, EnviroWoman said goodbye to another good friend - Lawry’s Seasoning Salt. Tofu will never be the same again.

Watch for upcoming XtremeMakeovers

In April’s Progress Report EnviroWoman reported TheUrgeToPurge was starting to get aggravating. This month she’s turned the problem into a challenge, as she often does. It’s kinda her own version of Flip This House.

Mini NoPlasticMakeovers are happening all over the place. It started with the office desk, then migrated to the pen-stash drawer, then the medicine cabinet and the cutlery drawer, and now the bathroom cupboards. Wait until she hits the closet – it will be What Not To Wear like you’ve never seen it!

Watch for upcoming episodes airing soon on the Living Plastic Free in 2007 channel.

Good Plastic Fortune this month

Anyway, despite all of this here has been some good plastic fortune this month….

• Finding Toilet Paper
• Discovering how great expensive pens are
• Being interviewed on Australia’s ABC radio
• Brain food: Plastic Ocean

The big challenge this month

Kicking the nail polish habit. Plus, I’m still on the hunt for plastic free mascara. Now I’ve added eye shadow, foundation, eyeliner and body lotion to the list. These are my holy grails…because cruelty-free cosmetics that are also plastic free are impossible to find.

And here it is, my sweets, just to keep me honest, an account of my SINs for the month of May….

MINOR SINS for May 2007

• 8 plastic liners from soda pop bottle caps
• Tampon wrappers
• Plastic liner from a foam pack envelope
• 2 mini straws hiding in cardboard packaging from utensils bought at Ikea
• 2 plastic labels

MAJOR SINs for May 2007

• None. But mascara is definitely starting to put a voodoo hex over me, as is nail polish…at least for the toes (‘come back to the dark side EnviroWoman’)

Challenges Ahead

As current supplies are dwindling I’m starting to hunt for the following non-plastic/packaged, cruelty-free items:

• Mascara & Eyeliner. Potential for a MAJOR SIN
• Body Lotion
• Scotch tape
• Lint rollers
• Eye shadow
• Motor Oil
• Bandaids
• Sunglasses
• Sun tan lotion/Sun Screen
• Thongs/Sandals
• Powdered Milk
• Clothes. I haven’t bought any since January because not buying polyester, nylon, spandex, etc, is gonna be hard.

If you have any suggestions where I can find these items please post a comment.

More: continued here

Full Spectrum Lighting: What are Full Spectrum Light Bulbs? Full Spectrum Lighting is less stressful to your health than other artificial light like Fluorescent lights. Enlarge Image Importance of Light Light, specifically natural sunlight, plays a very important role in our life. Exposure to Sunlight affects the Hypothalmus, which is perhaps the most [...]

More: continued here

There are many reasons to consider full spectrum light therapy lamps for use in your home. If you are unfamiliar, full spectrum light is light that contains all the wavelengths beneficial for life on Earth including infrared to ultraviolet. Sunlight is full spectrum light. Manufacturers are making full spectrum light bulbs, lamps and light box devices and systems that mimic the effects of natural sunlight. This can be very important for individuals who don’t get enough sun exposure on a daily basis. Although you may have heard sun exposure is dangerous, in some ways it can be very beneficial. Tags: Full Spectrum Light Therapy Lamps

More: continued here

In November, I replaced a pair of light bulbs in one of my ceiling lights. Tonight, the light bulbs in the other ceiling light also burned out. However, instead of replacing the burned out light bulbs with incandescent lights, I installed a pair of U Lighting America dimmable compact fluorescent light bulbs.
So, this [...]

More: continued here

You may have heard of light therapy, or already have some idea of what it’s all about. In short, light therapy is all about using part or all of the sun’s natural light spectrum to benefit and help heal the bodyof various conditions. For this purpose, various types of light therapy devices have been manufactured. These light therapy lights range all the way from full spectrum light therapy lights, which are meant to simulate sunlight in the home and to provide a generally beneficial effect, to lamps with specific sunlight frequencies which are meant to treat specific conditions. You can find more specific information from the links on the menu bar to the left. Tags: light therapy device, light therapy light, spectrum light therapy

More: continued here