How Many Irish Politicians Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb?
from the it's-not-a-joke dept
American politicians have been toying with such legislation for a while, and Australian politicians have already approved similar legislation, but it appears that Irish politicians are in something of a rush to ban incandescent lightbulbs. New legislation would ban the sale of the traditional lightbulbs as of January 2009 -- basically just one year. The Australian plan, that was approved earlier this year, would phase out the bulbs by 2010. While we can understand the basic reasoning, it's still unclear why a full ban is really necessary. Fluorescent bulbs keep getting cheaper and cheaper (and better and better in quality) than incandescent bulbs. They last so much longer and use so much less energy that it won't be long until most people voluntarily move to fluorescents, without any unnecessary ban on incandescents.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: energy, environment, greentech, ireland, lightbulbs, politics
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Possibly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please. Don't repeat the urban legend about CFLs. It's simply not true.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/05/ask_treehugger_14.php
http://www.snopes.com/medica l/toxins/cfl.asp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mercury in CFL
The amount of mercury in a CFL is 4mg, with 2.6mg emitted from a coal plant in its lifetime
The amount of mercury emitted from a coal plant in its lifetime from powering a incandescent is around 10mg.
Start moaning again when we are in a position that these figures are reversed as we are soley on renewable energy sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mercury in CFL
According to the websites posted in prior posts, to clean up a broken CFL you shouldn't use a vacuum or use your bare hands this could spread the vapor or contaminate your hands. If indoors, you should open windows to dilute the vapor.
This isn't Chernobyl clean up but its not common knowledge either and encouraging 10s of millions of people to outfit their homes using these lights and not educating them on the risks is unwise. I would rather take a centralized approach to reduce the number of greenhouse gas producing power plants than rely on millions of people to handle with care and properly dispose of 100s of millions of light bulbs containing mercury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ireland leads the way - again...
Big dirty motorways right through precious 3,000 year old archaeological sites, though, that they can't do anything about... bleedin' fantastic, these Greens! Watch the decimation at the next election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ireland leads the way....
Yes Lightbulbs are the big issue not the fossil fuel stations that pump electricity into our houses. This whole green thing really annoys me. Not because I am against the planet but because they make the small man pay with taxes and changes to lifestyle. Instead of changing how they produce electricity or differing fuels in service stations they say I must drive some crap car and have light that doesn't allow me to read properly. Surly if they fixed the fossel fuel in our power stations I could still have light and if they brought in rules on fuels in service stations I could drive what ever car I want but not pollute.
Why don't they do something really smart by changing the packaging laws so this chrsitmas I won't be filling a huge landfill site with tags and screws from the kids presents.
The truth is no one in politics will make the real decisions so they just push it on the ordinary man and try to tell you - every one helps the power of one blah blah.
I agree lets see them decimated in the next election but remember we didn't vote them in for this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GoodBye incandescent lamp ?
1) Then your equipment does not supplies stable voltage: e.g. "gradient swiches".
2) "Do not use fluorescent bulb in emergency equipment" (Why?)
3) It is not recommended to use them where it is "frequently" switched.
4) Not all popular shapes are available (especially small one)
5) Very shor range of power: 10W up to 25W - 85W (very bulky) not usable for small powerfull lighting equipment (e.g. Professional movie making, photography lighting equipment )
6) Slow "startup" sometimes
-----
7) Each BAN creates base for "black" economy (France, UK, Lithuania will start to export more incandescent lamps to Ireland :) ).
So fluorescent bulb is not Silver Bullet - in some (maybe most) cases it can replace incandescent lamps, but still there are cases when it can't.
May be LED has wider range of usability but also not 100% and costly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: GoodBye incandescent lamp ?
I have a small outbuilding that contains a water faucet. A 75 Watt incandescent bulb keeps it just warm enough to prevent freezing ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I had one go up in flames
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too many reasons not to do a sensible thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too many reasons not to do a sensible thing...
Fixed
Let's compare the pros and cons
CFI
Pro
Saves money in the long run
Better for the environment in that it uses less electricity
Can any one think of anything else?
Incandescent
Pro
Costs less now (talking dollars now over pennies every month)
Better for you if you break it
Doesn't have to be "Properly disposed of"
Comes in all the shapes and sizes to fit your lights
Less likely to explode (according to Haywood)
Better lighting (according to AC near the end)
In reality not many people will properly dispose of them so all those small amounts of mercury will add up.
It's like the debate over gas vs E85. If I find out that E85 is better in my car but causes more damage just to get it there than it's not greener. Plus I don't have the money to get a flexy fuel car. Damn, those hippies must be rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politicians Are Reactive
The politicians will take credit for 'helping the environment', when it really was market forces that helped the environment.
I'm not in favour of bans. Introduce efficiency standards and add a tax to those lights that fall below those efficiency 1standards. Let the consumer decide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bans
At first I was a little miffed about the gov. regulation but from a logical standpoint I sort of agree with the ban in principle. Most people will not do the right thing until they're forced to (and some not even then).
Hopefully the increased use will drive down the price of CFL's but for now they have too many limitations to have an outright ban.
When you can look at every con related to these bulbs and say that there is an alternative better then incandescents then I'll be in favour of the ban.
To add to the list above most of the lights I've seen also have a limitation to being right-side up and are not to be used in contained areas that don't have free-flowing air (Like almost every damn light fixture in my house!).
Yes, ban the bad ones but not until you can overcome the limitations of the CFL's in a more cost effective manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bans
More likely, the ban will mean that CFL no longer have to compete with cheaper incandescents, so the price will no longer drop and may actually go up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#14
Here! Here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sure
Hysterical much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the concept...
About someone's comment about how they only come in low wattages, and they will hurt your eyes: TRY ONE!! I know a bit about current, and the Watts are the amount of power they draw in order to light up... NOT the brightness. Most people don't know, but Lumens is the measure of brightness, and a 23 Watt CFL bulb is actually brighter than the 100-Watt Incandescents I used to use. People joke with me that they could land an airplane using my front-porch light as a guide because it's SO BRIGHT. So don't use brightness as an excuse not to help the environment.
There are down sides, though. And someone already mentioned them. Some applications need a specific sized bulb, and even though I found CFL's that are only 1cm (little less than 1/2 inch) longer than a standard bulb, some lighting fixtures literally don't have that little bit of extra space.
So the theory of banning their sale might be a good concept, but my main concern is that the unavailability of CFL's in exact sizes needed may force some people to make house renovations that they cannot afford in the current economy, or just go without light... or find a black market. I think a much better incentive is to limit the price on CFL's to within a certain range of incandescent so that people will just buy them on their own, instead of being forced to buy them. Our government does this with farm crops all the time (in case you're like most people, and don't know it), so why not do it with the light bulb. Better yet, give individuals a tax rebate of X dollars if they purchase X number of CFL bulbs to replace their existing ones... basically reimburse people for the difference... more people will buy, and the price will eventually equalize because they will be selling enough to step-up manufacturing, reducing front-end costs.
My general summary: TRY THE BULB BEFORE YOU SAY IT'S GOING TO HARM YOUR ABILITY TO SEE! And give people a reason to WANT to buy the bulb instead of legislating it. There are some applications where it is simply not feasible to use CFLs so unless the government is going to produce them in specialty sizes, they should not ban incandescent sales... but people need to realize that they can save money in a relatively short time when their light power consumption is cut down to 25-25% of their original usage. It's better for your electric bill, better for your eyes, and better for the environment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
25-35%
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just go ahead and put an energy saving lightbulb in there and then add a space heater. lol
Yes, it's true - people actually want to save money on energy costs... I have been moving to mostly energy efficient bulbs. However, not all light bulbs are the same size or shape.
I think it's fine, still - as long as EVERYONE has to stick to the law - including fine chandeliers in rich homes, sports parks, and the like.
Yeah... light that field up with fluorescent and not halogen... try.. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Progressive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Furthermore, sometimes the ones that are available don't fit either. If you'll notice, the traditional bulbs are narrow at the base and slowly expand out as they go up. The fluorescent bulbs are bulky right at the base. That has prevented me from installing one in the better of my two floor lamps (ones that project light up towards the ceiling) because the hole where the bulb goes is far too narrow around the base to accept such a bulb.
Despite that, I have replaced the bulbs in almost all the other light fixtures in my apartment, most with the daylight type of fluorescent bulbs. Those give off a much nicer white light, as opposed to the dimmer, ugly yellow light. Granted, they are a bit spendier, but worth it IMO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how can you not understand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irish politician's need to regulate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flourescent bulbs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
blah ... market decide ... blah blah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I did try the damn things.
High cost and poor quality light which I did not like so I throw the damn things in the trash can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they do call for a ban, my only concern is that I won't be able to use a dimmer. YOU CAN"T TAKE AWAY MY DIMMING RIGHTS DAMMIT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the snopes article is quite amusing.....
How many of your average homeowners will follow those steps to clean up a broken CFL? Considering that a minority of homeowners are probably even aware that there is Hg in CFL's, the first thing most homeowners will do is pull out the vacuum cleaner. Even without a vacuum cleaner, if the bulb broke on carpet, the area can remain "hot" for up to a week after the bulb broke. Again, I doubt it's much of problem with adults, however young children and pets can be exposed to several times the amount due to their close proximity to the ground. The same thing occurred with thermostat switches. Of course, those contained much, much more elemental Hg in them than CFL's, however I've seen houses that were still emanating Hg fumes from a broken Hg switch YEARS after it happened.
Then there's the recycling angle. How many will realistically end up in the landfills due to either the ignorance or laziness of a homeowner? 10%? 20%? We have the potential of seriously contaminating our landfills and perhaps our groundwater with Hg. Keep in mind how many millions of more bulbs will be out there compared to now. Probably a good comparison would be batteries. What percentage of household batteries are actually recycled vs. going into the landfill?
Bottom line, we've been trying for years to bring less Hazardous materials into our houses. No more lead based paint, eco-friendly cleaners, etc. Yet now we are willing to throw all that out the window and start bringing in hazardous materials into our house in the name of energy savings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bulb!
Democracy??? LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]