1. lighthouse says:

   April 29, 2011 at 1:33 pm

   There’s an irony there somewhere,

   Firstly the name “energy saving” bulbs for the fluorescent types,
   as if people would ask for “energy wasting” bulbs in the shops…

   but also in banning simple safe known technology in favor of unknown and seemingly
   unsafe technology, given the problem of CFLs with radiation and
   mercury concerns, LEDs with lead and arsenic concerns.
   Normally of course products are banned for being unsafe to use (like lead paint )…..

   It is a “Ban”:
   Temporarily allowed (until 2020) and unpopular Halogen etc
   incandescents are themselves more complex and costly and with a
   different (whiter) light for marginal savings, compared to the simple,
   cheap, popular and banned regular incandescent types.
   Besides, in post-ban EU, the Halogens are hardly available, and then
   only in a smaller range, the main stores all pushing CFL sales since
   LEDs are not yet suitable as general replacements.

   The further irony is that the popularity of simple regular bulbs,
   being about 4 out of 5 bulbs bought, is the reason for the ban:
   No “big savings” from banning what people don’t like as much!

   The continuing irony, is that the savings are in the end not that
   great either,
   less than 1% in overall US energy savings, using the Dept of Energy’s
   own figures
   ( There are further arguments against the ban )
   Much greater and more relevant savings of actual “energy waste” comes
   from power plant and grid changes, and from preventing the unnecessary
   usage of
   products eg night lighting in buildings,
   than from preventing the personal choices of the products that people
   want to use.

   The final irony is how consumer organisations support a reduced
   choice for consumers, and even more, how major light bulb
   manufacturers -surprisingly- welcome being told what they can make
   and sell:
   The ban on unprofitable cheap simple types of incandescent light bulbs of course
   allowing them to sell more expensive and profitable CFLs, that people
   would not otherwise buy – and, arguably, justifiably would not buy, in
   “sufficient quantities”: Documentation and copies of official communications of how
   manufacturers and other vested interests have pushed for the ban on
   regular light bulbs, and lobbied for CFL favors
   .

   Reply
2. Martin says:

   July 6, 2011 at 11:00 am

   What I find most interesting about the low-energy marketplace at the moment, is just how slow manufacturers have been to offer new technologies for interior lighting – particularly in the area of LED lighting.

   Now, I know that the economics of manufacture comes into play here, so that the early adopters have to pay through the nose to get the technology accepted (and to some extent evangelised), but this equation doesn’t seem to be in play across the whole of the lighting world.

   If you look at the kind of outdoor wall lightingthat has been available for some time now, you can find a variety of LED lights and other low voltage solutions that are already affordable for all-comers, but I know (at some considerable expense) what it costs to get an interior LED lighting setup – which only 2 or so years ago, had to be ultra-specialised since GU10 replacements didn’t even exist.

   Just getting customers to replace what they have (like for like) must surely be the first aim for vendors in this space. What do you think?

   Martin

   Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply