Comments on: Europe’s Incandescent Light Bulb Ban Begins Today

By: lighthouse10

lighthouse10 — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:43:01 +0000

Thanks Nia

Yes, I think we should take care of the environment,
but that does not in my view mean having to ban simple, cheap, locally made, bright, small size, mercury-free and safe to use ordinary incandescent light bulbs, for the reasons I gave above.

By: Nia

Nia — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:29:03 +0000

@lighthouse10

Thanks a lot for such detailed explanations. It would be interesting to see how it goes, and if there will be any lessons learned that might keep the US from implementing the same ban.

By: billyyvr

billyyvr — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:20:52 +0000

So how do you recycle the compact incandescent bulbs with all the mercury in it? After decades of contaminating landfills with plastic and other “inventive” non-biodegradable, we are now avoiding these in Canada. In fact, we are looking at banning the compact incandescents here in Canada while the light bulb manufacturers are trying to explain that the *amount* of mercury in the bulbs is negligible!

To quote the NY Times site
“Compact fluorescent lights have problems beyond light quality. They contain mercury, and few recycling centers will accept them. So at the end of life, they still pose an environmental hazard.

“We’re working to reduce mercury, but the amount will never go to zero,” Mr. Petras said.

That is why Mr. Jerabek, for one, calls compact fluorescent lights “a temporary fix.” ”

I would rather use a oil lamp than buy the compacts, For God’s sake, the EPA is even advocating the use of these compacts even though they know that they will probably end up buried in the earth, contaminating the water-table. Not only short-sighted but out-right criminal!!

People, don’t believe everything they tell you!! Anything for a buck and to hell with the environment!

Billy in Vancouver

By: lighthouse10

lighthouse10 — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:24:27 +0000

@Nia
Regarding mercury problems including what to do if a CFL breaks etc see http://ceolas.net/#li19x

Unlike most who are against the ban on light bulbs here in Europe,
I agree that power station emissions should be dealt with
(also for polluting substances, whatever about CO2 gas)

However, light bulbs don’t give out gases, and I believe such emissions can and should be dealt with directly,
as explained on http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x

The ban is wrong for many reasons,
unnecessarily removing choice and not giving the savings expected.
Even if the targeting of light bulbs was justified, a tax would give governmenrt income with the reduced sales,
that could help fund renewable energy and home energy/insulation conversion schemes,
lowering emissions more than any remaining light bulbs were causing them.
Also a tax could be revenue neutral, allowing for efficient products to have no or lower sales taxes,
though as said there is no real need to tax the bulbs either.

The ban responsible EU Energy Commissioner Piebalgs has defended the ban on his blog
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/piebalgs/lighting-the-way-to-the-future/
- I made an extensive comment to that, as seen.

Also see the comment to previous Inhabitat blog entry here:
http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/07/29/is-it-green-the-compact-fluorescent-lamp/#comment-172352

By: clairseach

clairseach — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:42:52 +0000

I heard a theatre lighting designer talk on the radio about how he won’t use CFL’s in his house. I only use them in places where the colour of the light doesn’t matter too much like the basement, porch lights, etc.

I’m hoping that LED lights can be better colour balanced someday, maybe by mixing red and green LED’s with white ones to warm them up.

It’s a challenge making an efficient light that doesn’t cast an eerie glow and make people’s skin look sickly.

By: Nia

Nia — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:58:03 +0000

But what about mercury in CFLs?