www.next-up.org Translation HC

www.enviro2b.com/environnement-actualite-developpement-durable/28759/article.html

02/04/09

Low-energy bulbs: a not-so-bright idea.

By Rémy Prud'homme, Professor Emeritus at the University of Paris XII.
Rémy Prud'homme studied at the Paris Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales, at the Faculty of Lawand Economic Sciences at the University of Paris, at Harvard University, also at the Institute of
Political Studies in Paris. He has been deputy director for the environment at the OECD and has beena consultant for most of the major international organisations, notably the World Bank. He calls into
question the promotion of low-energy bulbs, for economic as well as environmental reasons.
Researchers and industrialists have invented low-energy bulbs, which give as much light as traditional
filament bulbs while using five times less electricity and lasting five times longer. Thus replacing
filament bulbs with low-energy bulbs would apparently lead to saving money, reducing theconsumption of electricity, reducing emissions of CO², and saving the planet. Since consumers are notsufficiently convinced by these arguments, a law named after the Environment Round Table meeting
compels people to buy the new bulbs by purely and simply forbidding the sale of filament bulbs.
However we should be asking ourselves two questions: is this move good for the consumer? And
does it really reduce CO² emissions?
The crucial point, easily verified by putting your hand near abulb that is on, is that a bulb that produces light also produces
heat. In fact it produces mostly heat: most (95%) of thekilowatt-hours consumed by a filament bulb go to producingheat and the rest to producing light. A bulb works like anelectric radiator: a wire that a current passes through, aresistance.
By replacing a traditional bulb by a low-energy bulb, you will
indeed consume five times less electricity, but there will also
be many times fewer calories radiating into your room. In fact
you will have 13 times less calories, because low-energy bulbs
use most of the energy they consume for producing light andnot heat. This does not matter in summertime, on the contrary;
but in the winter when the heating is on, all the doctors whohave been consulted say that it will have to be increased tokeep the temperature of a room at the desired level, and tocompensate for the calories lost by producing new calories,
something a perfect thermostat would do automatically.

Higher heating bills
Thus bills for lighting will go down and bills for heating will go up. Making a prudent estimate that twothirds of lighting is used during winter, and at the energy prices of August 2008, one can calculate thatswitching bulbs will make a saving of about 110 million euros per year in total.
There are 700 million electric light bulbs in France. If they are filament bulbs they are replaced on
average once every 6 or 7 years. If they are low-energy bulbs, once every 50 years. Thus at 2 euros abulb, thanks to low-energy bulbs there would be another saving of 1.4 billion euros every 6 or 7 years.
But these two savings have a cost: 7 billion euros for the immediate purchase of 700 million bulbs at
10 euros. A simple calculation, with a modest update rate of 4%, reveals that for the consumer the end
result is negative. They lose about 2 billion euros on the deal; and they will lose a lot more if the next
generation of bulbs, the LEDs, soon make obsolete the low-energy bulbs that are being imposed onthem at such great cost today.

CO² emissions doubled.

Is this compulsory changeover a good deal for the environment, at least? Some people are concerned
about the harmful radiation that low-energy bulbs emit during their lifetime, and about the mercury thatthey emit at their death. Let's toss aside the precautionary principle and ignore these as yet unprovendangers so that we can concentrate of the question of CO² emissions.
Will these be any different after the great bulb changeover? Alas, no. To make up the shortfall inheating the French will draw on electric power for about one-third and on oil and gas for two-thirds.
Switching bulbs means 3 billion kWh less of electricity, and 2 billion kWh more of oil and gas.
Unfortunately 1 kWh of oil and gas emits 4 to 5 times more CO² than 1 kWh of French electricity,which comes mostly from nuclear and hydroelectric sources. A simple calculation shows that changing
bulbs will cause the annual total of CO² emissions to double, passing from 3 million tonnes withfilament bulbs to more than 6 million tonnes with low-energy bulbs. Reducing purchasing power by 7billion euros today in order to emit twice as much CO²?!
To sum up, low-energy bulbs are what the English call a half-baked idea. Like biofuels. Like windfarms. Like the bonus-malus car insurance system. Like many of the measures resulting from theEnvironment Round Table meeting, which have been dictated by passion rather than serious thought.
__________________________________________________________________________________________"The champion of EMF environmental pollution"
Jean-Louis Borloo, the French Minister of Ecology!

CLICK