Traditional light bulbs are inefficient and generate more heat than light. To save money and the planet householders can benefit by choosing alternative greener options.
As part of its green agenda the European Union (EU) has banned 100 watt incandescent light bulbs as reported by the BBC.. They will no longer be available in the EU after 1st September 2009 once existing stocks are sold; other wattages will be phased out by 2012.
The End of the Incandescent Tungsten Filament Light Bulb
The light bulb has been around since the late 1800s when it was developed and commercialised by Edison in the USA and Swan in the UK. The main problem is that it is a very inefficient source of light as 90% of the energy is wasted as heat.
Also the typical life of a 100 watt bulb is about 1,000 hours; whilst bulbs are cheap they are not the cheapest long-term solution because of the frequent replacement and their energy cost.
With rising cost of electricity and labour it is time to consider the alternatives. There are viable options but they may not be as universally applicable as the traditional light bulb. Light sources will need to be chosen for specific use – as has been happening naturally.
Lighting Options Available for Domestic Use
Fortunately there are alternatives to obsolescent bulbs that are generally available in hardware stores. The main options are:
Halogen – is an incandescent filament in a halogen gas atmosphere which works at higher temperatures to gain efficiency and produce whiter light than traditional bulbs. They are up to twice as efficient so a lower energy rating can be used and they last 2-4 times longer. Bulbs are available in forms suitable for general ambient lighting and directional task lighting. They work with dimmers and timers.
Fluorescent – The strip light is established and is suitable for ambient lighting but is limited aesthetically. As well as straight tubes there have been circular and folded version but the size has always limited their use in the home so they are not a universal solution. They are efficient and long lived especially useful for difficult to access places or where heat build up would prevent incandescent lights. Generally they have not worked with dimmers although there are now versions that will.
Compact Fluorescent Lamp(CFL) – The fluorescent light has been miniaturised and folded to give compact forms. They can be 4-5 times more efficient than incandescent so a 25 watt lamp will produce as much light as a 100 watt bulb. Early CFLs were slow to give full light but are now much improved; as is the now warmer colour. They have long lives of, typically, 10,000 hours; 10 times longer than traditional bulbs. Whilst more expensive that is offset by the lower energy use and longer life. In commercial settings the additional maintenance savings are invaluable. Special versions are needed for use with dimmers otherwise their life is much reduced.
Light Emitting Diode (LED) – The newest technology which is developing rapidly. LED has the potential to be the most energy efficient of all current lighting technologies. They generally give a good white light and have the longest life at around 50,000 hours. Initially LED is only available as directional light sources suitable for task lighting and spot lights but is changing quickly. They are also expensive but as sales volumes increase the price is coming down and economics will improve. There is very little heat produced by LED lighting and they work with dimmers. They are available as direct replacements for many halogen bulbs.
Economics of Lighting
The economics of lighting choices changes quickly as there are many factors in play:
Energy price changes, usually upwards
Lighting efficiency with changing technology
Bulb prices fall as production efficiencies improve with rising demand and maturing technology.
Usage, access to fittings and maintenance costs
The best economic choice will therefore change frequently and architects, householders or building supervisors will have to re-examine their choices each time they need to plan a lighting scheme or replace lights.
More detailed information
Progress is rapid so making the best choice will require checking out the lighting manufacturers web sites (such as Phillips, GE or Osram) for the most current information and the specifics of their products.
Environmental organisations explain the economics of the various light sources. These include Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and consumer bodies.
Major sources for this article were the GE and Physorg websites but it is difficult to make clear comparisons as sources usually have a position to promote and the technology is changing so the consumer will need to do their own research.
BNC101
The copyright of the article Energy Efficient Light Bulbs Save Money and Work in Home Electrical is owned by Martin P Wilson. Permission to republish Energy Efficient Light Bulbs Save Money and Work in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Certainly it is good to think of efficient choices. Efficiency
is however only one attraction of a product - or no inefficient products
would be bought. While usually cheaper -no crime- people don't keep
buying cheap but useless products, just like they don't necessarily avoid
expensive alternatives. Ordinary simple light bulbs have many well
known attractions - not least the bright warm broad spectrum light
quality.
Europeans, like Americans, choose to buy ordinary light
bulbs around 8-9 times out of 10 (lighting 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 valves were banned...
they were bought less anyway.
Supposed savings don't hold up for
many reasons: http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x onwards
Effect
on Electricity Bills 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: (especially since 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 (for
all else they contain too, whatever about CO2): http://ceolas.net/#cc10x
Sep 4, 2009 6:32 PM
Guest :
Certainly it is good to think of efficient choices. Efficiency
is however only one attraction of a product - or no inefficient products
would be bought. While usually cheaper -no crime- people don't keep
buying cheap but useless products, just like they don't necessarily avoid
expensive alternatives. Ordinary simple light bulbs have many well
known attractions - not least the bright warm broad spectrum light
quality.
Europeans, like Americans, choose to buy ordinary light
bulbs around 8-9 times out of 10 (lighting 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 valves were banned...
they were bought less anyway.
Supposed savings don't hold up for
many reasons: http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x onwards
Effect
on Electricity Bills 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: (especially since 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 (for
all else they contain too, whatever about CO2): http://ceolas.net/#cc10x
Sep 4, 2009 6:33 PM
Guest :
Certainly it is good to think of efficient choices. Efficiency
is however only one attraction of a product - or no inefficient products
would be bought. While usually cheaper -no crime- people don't keep
buying cheap but useless products, just like they don't necessarily avoid
expensive alternatives. Ordinary simple light bulbs have many well
known attractions - not least the bright warm broad spectrum light
quality.
Europeans, like Americans, choose to buy ordinary light
bulbs around 8-9 times out of 10 (lighting 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 valves were banned...
they were bought less anyway.
Supposed savings don't hold up for
many reasons: ceolas.net/#li13x onwards
Effect on
Electricity Bills 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: (especially since 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 (for
all else they contain too, whatever about CO2): ceolas.net/#cc10x
Sep 4, 2009 6:46 PM
Guest :
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. It is purely a ban for CONSUMPTION reasons.
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 dollars tax that
reduces the current sales (USA 2 billion sales per annum) really
raises future billions of dollars, 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 the overall lowering of emissions.
Sep 5, 2009 3:56 AM
Martin P Wilson :
There are major arguments for, and against, the ban but it is here in
Europe (and Australia) and complaining will do little. There has been
little negative press on the matter. There will be an election in the UK
within 9 months but I suspect light bulb bans will not figure in the
debate. However it should be noted that several major retailers in the
UK had, or were in the process of, discontinuing the sale of such bulbs for
their own reason. So it would seem there was growing commercial pressure
against their sale.
Sep 4, 2009
