US ban of the incandescent bulbs More information on the phase out of incandescent lamps can be found in this pdf-file: The Light Bulb 'Ban' - Here are the facts . As one can ascertain, from 2012 on, the lamps have to be 25 - 30% more energy efficient than before. Also, the phase out of the 100 watt bulb will start on 1/1/2012; the 75 watt bulb will start on 1/1/2013; and the 60 watt and 40 watt bulbs will start on 1/1/2014. Moreover: If the Secretary fails to complete a rulemaking in accordance with clauses (i) through (iv) or if the final rule does not produce savings that are greater than or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt, effective beginning January 1, 2020, the Secretary shall prohibit the sale of any general service lamp that does not meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt. (Energy Independence and Security Act of 200, sec.

321, H.R.6-88 to 89) This means that, after 2014, more restrictions will be proclamed with the consequence that not only common incandescent light bulbs but even halogen light bulbs will be banned. In 2006, 1.7 billion lamps were sold in the US, from which 1.5 billion incandescent light bulbs (Felipe Carlos Bastos, Análise da política de banimento de lâmpadas incandescentes do mercado brasileiro , March 2011). If the Act of 2007 will not be adapted, in 2020 no common incandescent lamps will be sold! The US will then be the only western country where the free market has been restrained so drastically. Has a new age dawn where government intervention in private affairs has become justified by law? But, you will say, will these incandescent light bulbs only be substituted by mercury containing CFLs? What does the Act prescribe about the mercury in these lamps? On two places in section 321, the word "mercury" is mentioned.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in cooperation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall submit to Congress a report describing recommendations relating to the means by which the Federal Government may reduce or prevent the release of mercury during the manufacture, transportation, storage, or disposal of light bulbs. (HR6-95) The Administrator shall develop guidelines for the use of energy efficient lighting technologies that contain mercury in child care centers in public buildings. (H.R.6-100) Are you reassured after these elucidations? I don't think so. Even worse, a large budget will be spend to promote these mercury containing lamps! There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2012. And for what purpose? Will consumers be informed about the dangers of the mercury containing CFLs? No, quite the reverse, the budget of $40,000,000 (during 4 years) will (among other things) help consumers understand the lamp labels and make energy-efficient lighting choices that meet the needs of consumers.

Yes, you just read the word "choice". Choice between which lamp types, when only CFLs will be affordable for the average household? Meanwhile, the ban on incandescent light bulbs has been under fire twice in 2011: 7/15/2011: The House of Representatives Lawmakers passed an amendment to the energy- spending legislation for fiscal year 2012 barring the Energy Department from implementing or enforcing lighting-efficiency standards set by 2007 legislation. The law would effectively push the traditional bulbs off store shelves, starting with the 100-watt version next year. ( ) The House has voted to delay the de facto ban on incandescent light bulbs for at least a year. It is the first step in restoring consumer choice and ending government intrusion into our homes. ( Rep. Joe Barton ) 12/16/2011: House and Senate negotiators on Thursday night reached a tentative agreement on a $1 trillion omnibus spending bill that would avert a government shutdown, the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Committee announced.

( thehill/com ) The deal agreed to in Congress merely deprives the Department of Energy the funds to enforce the ban for 2012. The ban is still on the books � so the DOE may very well get the money next year or the year after or who knows when. ( junkscience.com ) The reaction of Steven Nadel Executive Director of ACEEE was: Contrary to misinformation being spread by some lamp standard opponents, the standards do not ban incandescent lamps, but merely require incandescent lamps to be more efficient. Five manufacturers are now producing and selling efficient incandescent bulbs that meet the standards. With the new budget provision, the law is still in effect, but the Department of Energy cannot spend money to enforce it. ( ACEEE ) More Rare Earth Materials will be needed: In the United States, two sets of lighting energy efficiency standards that come into effect in 2012 will likely increase demand for fluorescent lamps containing phosphors made with europium, terbium and yttrium. The first set of standards applies to general service bulbs. The second set of standards applies to linear fluorescent lamps (LFLs). The projected increase in U.S.

demand for CFLs and efficient LFLs corresponds to a projected increase in global CFL demand, suggesting 6 upward price pressures for rare earth phosphors in the 2012�2014 timeframe, when europium, terbium and yttrium will be in short supply. In the future, light-emitting diodes (which are highly efficient and have much lower rare earth content) are expected to play a growing role in the market, reducing the pressure on rare earth supplies. ( U.S. Department of Energy, Critical Materials Strategy, December 2011, p. 5 .) Remark: Sylvania is producing halogen incandescent lighting at a converted incandescent bulb manufacturing facility in Pennsylvania (Whoriskey 2010). (DOE 2011, p. 24) Frequently Asked Questions. Information on Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs) and Mercury, November 2010 . In the mentioned writing, a comparison is made between the total mercury emission from the use of an incandescent lamps and of a CFL.

The following calculation is found in Vicki Calwell and Peter Banwell, CFLs, Mercury and Mayhem!, 2008 : EPA concludes: Because CFLs also help to reduce greenhouse gasses, other pollutants associated with electricity production, and landfill waste (because the bulbs last longer), they are clearly the environmental winner when compared to traditional incandescent light bulbs. Our remarks EPA has not factored in the mercury pollution in all phases that precede and follow the use of these lamps. Also, more attention has to given to the noxious consequences of this lamp during the use phase. The processing of cinnabar is associated with elevated atmospheric Hg emissions. (UNEP_cost_benefit2008, p. 93) Some reopened mercury mines in China have ruined the environment and the inhabitants. Witness the fact of dead rivers, poisoned fields and ailing inhabitants. Any manufacturing process that employs Hg will produce Hg vapor that potentially exposes the workers. (UNEP_cost_benefit2008, p. 115) In a CFL factory, 121 out of 123 employees had excessive mercury levels. One man�s level was 150 times the accepted standard.

(Extracts from the article of The Times on line dated May 3, 2009) Also, the Hg emissions from coal-fired energy sources for the energy used in manufacturing must be factored in. The high proportion of blue in CFLs can have a negative impact on health. It can be a trigger for depression. Several CFLs emit UV-radiation. Some persons are allergic to it. Broken CFLs in rooms can have very noxious consequences to children. During the recycling process, the distillation requires a substantial amount of energy. If the electricity is supplied by coal fired sources, a new emission of mercury will take place. During the transportation from the reprocessing factories back to the lamp factories, a new emission of mercury can be generated if e.g. bunker oil is used to ship back mercury to China. However, I suppose that a return path for mercury does not exist at this level. EPA compares an incandescent lamp of 60W with a CFL of 13W. According to a VITO-report (Flemish Institute for Technological Research, Final Report. Domestic lighting, 2009, p.

112-113) it should be better to use the equivalence of 4:1. So, a 60W incandescent lamp should be replaced by a 15W CFL. This requirement compensates for the lower real life performance of the CFLi compared to GLS [i.e.: 'General Lighting Service lamp' or incandescent lamp] due to lower LLMF[Lamp Lumen Maintenance Factor, see p. 201] (ageing factor, (�)), temperature effects, potential influence from lamp position and a compensation for the low start performance due to warm-up time. Hours of Use: 8,000 hours. According to several consumers� organizations, the tested lifetime of the CFL does not always match the promised lifetime. One of the most common complaints of customers is premature failure after only a few hours, days, weeks or years, way short of the life rate stated on the package. The New York Times brought attention to this problem. So, a customer who buys a CFL doesn�t know if the lifetime indicated on the package will be reached.

According to EPA, the national average of mercury emissions (mg/kWh) due to the electricity production, is 0.012 mg. It is obvious that the mercury emissions from power plants are decreasing. In the United States, EPA promulgated a regulation in 2005 to reduce criteria air pollutant emissions from power plants, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The U.S. EPA calculated the estimated costs and some of the benefits of that regulation. The CAIR rule is primarily aimed at reducing emissions of SOx and NOx from large coal-fired power plants, but as a co-benefit will result in reductions of mercury emissions. The CAIR rule will achieve the majority of its mercury reductions as a co-benefit from controls for SO2. Applying SO2 controls (or other multi-pollutant approaches) are more cost-effective at reducing mercury than direct mercury control. EPA also promulgated the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) which was targeted to specifically further reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

The co-benefits of CAIR were estimated to reduce mercury emissions to 34.5 metric tonnes in 2010; the specific requirements of CAMR were estimated to further reduce mercury emissions to 13.6 tonnes by 2020. This could cost the U.S. electric power industry about US$ 11.3 billion. (UNEP_cost_benefit2008, p. 21) More interesting information about the reduction of mercury emissions from coal usage can be found on p.15 to p. 23 of this UNEP report. Update August 13, 2012: I made a new calculation with the figures of 2010. EPA (see NRCD�s report ): Electric Sector Mercury Air Pollution: 68,199 lb, i.e. 30935 kg. NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute): Total Electricity Generation 2010 in US: 4,125,059,900 MWh. So, the national average mercury emissions amount to 0.0075 mg/kWh for the year 2010.

The figure of 0.012 is more than outdated. On this wrong base, EPA told us that CFLs are more environment friendly: Mercury emission from electricity use of a CFL 13W: 0.013 kW x 8000 h x 0.012 mg/kWh = 1.2 mg. The mercury content in the lamp is 4 mg. The total mercury emission is 5.2 mg (assuming that no CFL bulb has been recycled). Mercury emission from electricity use of 8 incandescent lamps (a life time of 1000 hours is estimated) of 60W: 0.06kW x 8000 h x 0.012 mg/kWh = 5.76 mg. An incandescent lamp contains no mercury. I revised the EPA calculation using the recent figure: Mercury emission from electricity use of a CFL 13W: 0.013 kW x 8000 h x 0.0075 mg/kWh = 0.78 mg. The mercury content in the lamp is 4 mg.

The total mercury emission is 4.78 mg. Mercury emission from electricity use of 8 incandescent lamps of 60W: 0.06kW x 8000 h x 0.0075 mg/kWh = 3.6 mg. Update January 28 2013: In the report of UNEP, Global Mercury Assesment 2013, p. 16, the mercury emission from power plants in the U.S. is estimated at 27 tonnes in 2010. This gives a mercury emission of 0.00655 mg/kWh. This number is still lower that the just mentioned number. This means that CFLs are more polluting than incandescent bulbs! The lower is the mercury emission from the coal fired power plants, the longer must be the lifetime of the CFL to compensate for the mercury content of the lamp. In most western countries, this mercury emission has reached such a sufficient low level that the mercury content of CFLs is larger than the gains that can be made. Here we must report a serious flaw in the reasoning of EPA.

CFLs are justified because the level of mercury emission by power plants has reached a certain noxious level. It must be clear: more CFLs will not be a solution to the high mercury emissions by power plants! The only solution will be to reduce the mercury emission from coal fired power plants. When electricity production occurred without mercury emission, only CFLs would release mercury in the environment. Mercury in landfills. EPA (FAQ; November 2010): Most mercury vapor inside fluorescent light bulbs becomes bound to the inside of the light bulb as it is used. EPA estimates that the rest of the mercury within a CFL � about 11 percent � is released into air or water when it is sent to a landfill, assuming the light bulb is broken. EPA, 2008:A recent collaborative study by researchers at EPA and other environmental consulting firms estimated 10% of the mercury contained in a fluorescent lamp is released as air emissions, 1% is released to water, and 89% is held in soil (contained in landfills) (Cain et al. 2007). As a consequence, only (4 mg x 11% =) 0.44 mg mercury remains!

As if by magic, 89% of the mercury content has disappeared! That the soil is contaminated with a mercury solution seems not be a problem for EPA. The argumentation proceeds. Therefore, if all 272 million CFLs sold in 2009 were sent to a landfill (versus recycled, as a worst case) � they would add 0.12 metric tons, or 0.12 percent, to U.S. mercury emissions caused by humans. One can only remark that EPA underestimates the pollution of landfills by broken CFLs. Also, electricity generation emits mercury in metallic form and in low concentration because dissipated over a large area. Metallic mercury doesn't easily become part of the food chain. However, when a CFL bulb breaks in a landfill, there is much less dissipation and bacteria convert metallic mercury into methyl-mercury which is 100 times more soluble in fat.

(Commission Staff Working Document, Accompanying document to the Commission Regulation implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirement for non-directional household lamps, 18-3-2009, p.79) The luminous efficiency is not mentioned in the calculation. This factor is however needed if one wants to calculate the mercury emitted over lifetime per lumen per hour. 3. Net Mercury Emissions Benefit from Using a CFL (answer to EPA) EPA had to use mainly two tricks to make their calculation favourable to CFLs: use the old number of mercury emission (0.012 mg/kWh instead of 0.0065 mg/kWh); minimize the mercury pollution in landfills. Now we accept a national mercury emission of 0.0065 mg/kWh and factor in 100% mercury from the CFLs in landfills. As in the EPA calculation, we assume that all CFLs are inappropriately discarded with unsorted waste.

The result is: Lamp Type 3.14 mg (instead of 5.76 mg) 0 mg 3.14 mg Conclusion: Regarding the environmental impact, the incandescent lamp is a better choice than de CFL! Assuming all 290 million CFLs sold in 2007 are landfilled, they will contribute to a supplementary mercury emission of 446 kg ((4.68 � 3.14 mg) * 290 million)! By banning all CFLs the emission of mercury would be reduced a lot. In future, by further reducing the mercury emission by power plants, the CFLs will become still more obsolete. 4. A comparative test between three lamp types The eco-efficiency of a CFL depends mainly on four factors: the mercury emission into the air from power stations; the effective luminous efficiency; the lifetime of the lamp; the amount of mercury in the lamp. When one wants to investigate these items, a serious problem arises: no figures are given by the manufacturers about the amount of mercury in their lamps. This is very strange because mercury is a toxic product and all consumers should be warned about it.

Instead of this warning, these bulbs are almost given in the hands of children. We can only conjecture that CFLs with a longer lifetime contain more mercury. On the other hand, CFLs with a higher wattage show a higher luminous efficiency. A short inquiry of recent advertising brochures let see in the category with a wattage lower than 10 W, a luminous efficiency of 50 lumen/watt, and a luminous efficiency of 57 lm/watt in the category between 10 and 20 W. The following table gives an overview of the eco-efficiency of CFLs. No losses due to power factor are factored in. All calculations are made in the supposition that 20% of the CFLs are disposed of safely. A CFL of 14W is compared with an incandescent bulb of 60W (lifetime 1000 h) and with a halogen lamp of 42W (lifetime 2000 h).

Further, we assume the mercury emission into the air from the power stations is 0.0075 mg per kWh and the mercury content in the CFL is 4 mg in the CFL (to compare with the example of ENERGY STAR). A more correct calculation of the mercury emissions: Mercury emitted to air for the production of 1 kWh (mg) 0.0065 mg Result of the calculation of the total mercury emission Regarding environmental impacts, the new halogen lamp is the best choice. You can test it yourself! Fill in watts and lumen from existing lamps! The more the mercury emission to the air from the electricity production will be low, the more the incandescent lamps will be better than CFLs regarding the environmental impacts. We repeat that this calculations does not factor in the mercury emissions from any coal-fired energy sources for the energy used in manufacturing and recycling CFLs or the mercury emission from the exploitation of the mercury mines and the manufacturing process releases. The results of this example has far-reaching consequences. Here it is proven that Hg-free substitutes exist that are viable for the lighting of rooms, if one factors in the eco-efficiency of the lamps.

The consequence is that CFLs are obsolete and should be phased out as soon as possible. Moreover, the technology of halogen and incandescent lamps gives a much better quality of light than that of CFLs. The technology of CFLs is just wrong because it is a toxic technology that is given in the hands of the consumers. Nevertheless, from the beginning, lighting manufacturers have almost exclusively mobilized on the CFL technology. Politicians are also responsible for this evolution towards the misuse of mercury for lighting purposes. 5. Arthur Firstenberg (Cellular Phone Task Force) wrote this letter at the end of 2013: This is your last chance to stock up on ordinary light bulbs, because it will be illegal to manufacture or import them into the United States as of January 1, 2014. Please remind everyone. In case you think it will be easy to travel to another country and bring some back with you, most countries in the world either have already banned incandescent bulbs or are in process of doing so. The U.S., Canada, Malaysia and South Korea are banning them as of next week.

Cuba banned them in 2007, Australia in 2010, the UK in 2011. The entire European Union banned them as of September 1, 2012, and Israel banned bulbs over 60 watts in January 2012. Tajikistan prohibited them as of 2009, and Russia plans to complete its phase-out next year. China, where most incandescents are now manufactured, is scheduled to ban 60 watt bulbs as of October 1, 2014, and 15 watt bulbs two years later. Mexico and all other Central American countries have agreed to end sales of incandescents by the end of 2016, and the EconomicCommunity of West African States plans a complete phase-out before 2020. The only country I have discovered where a ban is not underway is New Zealand, which returned to sanity in 2008 and scrapped plans to prohibit the bulbs. I hope that is still true. Perhaps my New Zealand contacts can update me.

Also, although India's official policy is to eventually get rid of ordinary, cheap, safe bulbs that emit warm and friendly light, it is finding it difficult to enforce a ban on a billion less-than-wealthy people. Although halogen replacements are being touted by some as a safe (though more expensive) variation on the incandescent bulb that is still legal in the United States (the European Union has plans to ban them too by September 1, 2016), they produce a hotter, bluer light, emit more ultraviolet, and contain iodine or bromine. The war on traditional light bulbs is being driven by profit. There is no valid environmental reason to ban them. All the alternatives are much more energy-intensive (and therefore costly and polluting) to manufacture, and even the waste heat given off by incandescents (at least in middle and high latitudes) contributes to the heating of our homes during large parts of the year and must be replaced by gas or oil. I need not mention the violation of human rights that is occurring. Large numbers of people with disabilities are unable to use any of the alternatives. If anyone has information or discussion to contribute on this subject, please email or call me.

Arthur Firstenberg (write to Cellular Phone Task Force ) 6. Soraa is again asking the EPA to reconsider Energy Star efficacy requirements for SSL lamps. Soraa , a Silicon Valley startup founded in 2008, is moving ahead with plans for making energy-efficient GaN-on-GaN LED light bulbs to displace halogen-based lamps that significantly improve brightness, while becoming more like incandescents in look and feel. The group is now asking the EPA to require lamps in the 80�90 CRI range to deliver 5 lm/W higher efficacy than lamps with CRI above 90, recognizing that high CRI is documented to reduce efficacy. Soraa and the other petitioners are concerned because Energy Star recognition is essentially a de facto requirement for customers seeking rebates or incentives for investing in energy-efficient lighting upgrades. (...) "Poor light quality ruined many consumers' confidence in compact fluorescents," said Soraa's Krames.

"The Energy Star qualification must be associated with LED lamps that provide a better quality of light; otherwise, the program will start to lack credibility with end users and the low adoption rate history of CFLs will be repeated by LED lamps." The EPA has said that it would still welcome comments on the issue. But with the release of the latest draft it also said that there were plenty of high-CRI products on the market already that met the requirements. ( Source: ledsmagazine.com ) Conclusions Why is the people of America deprived from the elementary information concerning the total phasing out of incandescent and halogen lightbulbs after 2014? In other countries, the incandescent lamps with enhanced efficiency will remain allowed. Why has the US-government choosen the CFL as the best choice without making any objection to the mercury content? Let's hope that the freedom of choice will be restored before 2013. EPA must stop to spread wrong information about the mercury pollution in landfills and about the eco-efficiency of CFLs. When all processes are factored in, CFLs are not the best choice, regarding the environmental impacts.

Our result is in clear contradiction with the EPA conclusion that the mercury emission of an incandescent lamp is 3.4 times larger than the emission of a CFL. The information of the amount of mercury contained in a fluorescent lamp is essential to deduce the impact of the lamp on the environment. Nevertheless, no indication of the amount of mercury is found on the CFLs. It is a shame that EPA promotes the filthy lucre among citizens knowing very well the irreparable noxious effects from the mercury in CFLs and elsewhere. It is much cheaper to prevent the pollution than to clean it up afterwards. Is profit more valuable to the government than the planet? Because of the reasons summed up on this page, CFLs should be banned immediately. Alternatives without mercury are available: halogen lamps, incandescent lamps and LEDs. When substitutes exist for mercury containing products, these substitutes have to be promoted and the mercury containing products have to be counteracted. The ban on incandescent lamps must be lifted. EPA has to create incentives for switching to Hg-free lamps. A cleaner environment tolerates only Hg-free products if viable. For other fluorescent lighting products however, at this moment, substitutes hardly exist.

Remark: It is very important to stress that CFLs and LEDs produce a different type of light in comparison with incandescent light. So, they cannot be a substitute products! A ban of incandescent light bulbs has led to a very reduced choice of light products. Energy-saving light bulbs leap in price - Telegraph Energy Efficiency Energy-saving light bulbs leap in price The cost of energy saving light bulbs is rising sharply ahead of the European Union ban on the traditional 60-watt bulbs. Once stocks run out, householders will have to rely on low-energy Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) instead Photo: AFP/GETTY IMAGES By Edward Malnick First the European Union banned the sale of traditional 100-watt light bulbs in favour of "energy-saving" alternatives. Frosted-style bulbs, too, disappeared from British shop shelves on orders from Brussels. Now, at the end of this month, comes the biggest reform of all, when all production of basic 60-watt light bulbs will cease. Once stocks run out, householders will have to rely on low-energy Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) instead.

Whilst the new-style lights last longer and use less electricity, critics complain that they are less bright. Related Articles Householders can exploit loophole in light bulb ban 01 Sep 2009 And with just weeks to go before the September 1 switch date, consumers have suffered another blow: the cost of CFLs is soaring. Manufacturers have blamed recent price rises on the growing cost of raw materials required to make the bulbs, and say there are further increases to come. In a second, parallel move, the price of the traditional-style 60-watt bulbs has also gone up sharply as the date approaches for their manufacture to cease. A similar pattern was observed in 2009, when the price of 100-watt bulbs increased sharply just before they went out of production – at a time when some shops and consumers were stockpiling the old-style bulbs. Giles Chichester, the Conservative energy spokesman in the European parliament, accused manufacturers of "exploiting a market opportunity" by raising the price of 60-watt bulbs.

The EU announced in 2008 that it would phase in a ban on the manufacture of old-style incandescent light bulbs, used since Victorian times, as part of its drive to save energy and cut carbon emissions. However, the CFLs that are replacing them contain small quantities of expensive rare earth elements. Makers say that growing demand for the substances, particularly in China where they come from, has forced prices upwards. One major wholesaler, Sparks in north London, said the price charged by its supplier for an 11-watt CFL had risen from £1.39 in June to £1.67 today, an increase of 20 per cent. For consumers, the price of a Philips 11-watt CFL at Argos has risen from £3.99 in September 2009 to £4.99 last week, a rise of 25 per cent. At Sainsbury's, the cheapest energy-saving bulb is now £2, up from £1.21 for the same bulb two years ago – a rise of 65 per cent. In letters sent to lighting suppliers and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, manufacturers say they expect even more increases later in the year.

The sales director of Sylvania, one of Europe's largest bulb-makers, told his customers that China's near-monopoly over the key raw materials lay behind the increase. He wrote: "At the end of last year, the Chinese government decided to reduce the export of rare earth elements to protect their fast-diminishing reserves. This has resulted in limited availability of phosphors in 2011 and a steep increase in price." Duncan Chamberlain, the trade commercial manager of Philips, wrote: "Philips Lighting expects that further price increases may be necessary during the course of 2011." The price of traditional 60-watt bulbs has doubled since the EU announced its ban in 2008. One manufacturer which charged 16p in 2008 now charges 33p, and at Sainsbury's the price per bulb has gone up from 70p to £1. James Shortridge, managing director of the Ryness lighting shop chain, said that such sharp increases in wholesale prices were last seen around the time that the 100W bulb was banned in September 2009.

He told The Sunday Telegraph: "When the 100W ban came in, the last orders we placed were 30 per cent higher in cost than the previous ones. Their production plant did not suddenly leap in cost from one month to the next, it's just a case of 'These are the last orders, we are going to take what we can for it.'" Whereas 11-watt CFL bulbs are marketed as being the "equivalent" of a traditional 60-watt bulb, tests conducted by this newspaper have shown they produce less than 60 per cent of the illumination. Consumers were encouraged to accept the new-style bulbs with a Government scheme – now ended – which saw them sold for as little as 10p at supermarkets and DIY stores, thanks to subsidies provided by energy giants in return for points towards carbon reduction targets. The Energy Saving Trust's website states that the price of their recommended light bulb starts from between £1 and £2. However, consumers will struggle to find CFLs manufactured by the leading brands recommended by the Trust at this price.

Mr Shortridge said that not a single manufacturer sells the energy saving bulbs for less than £1.80, which are in turn being sold to customers for over £2. Consumers have been warned that cheaper, non-branded alternative bulbs have been known to explode and to break light fittings. Does A Ban On High-Watt Vacuum Cleaners Really Suck? | Nosey Parker Does A Ban On High-Watt Vacuum Cleaners Really Suck? Alan Parker - September 2nd, 2014 The manufacture or importing of all these high-wattage, big-name vacuum cleaners is now banned within the European Union, as of Monday, Sept. 1. I think everyone is aware that Europe is years ahead of North America when it comes to restricting energy consumption. Whether you think that’s a good thing or bad thing often depends on one’s socio-political view of the world. Whatever your stance, you’re probably also aware it’s a safe bet that most energy-use regulations implemented in Europe will eventually find their way into legislation in the United States and Canada — usually with a lag time of five years or so. Take incandescent light bulbs, for example. The European Union banned their manufacture and import in 2009.

The U.S. implemented a rolling ban with 100-watt incandescents hit in 2012, 75-watters in 2013 and the lowly (but most widely used) 40- and 60-watt bulbs at the beginning of this year. Canada finally got around to banning most 100-watt and 75-watt incandescents on Jan. 1, 2014, with 40- and 60-watt bulbs targeted for elimination as of Dec. 31. (Some halogen-filled incandescent bulbs will be allowed for a while longer.) The latest battle in the fight to conserve energy seems to be over vacuum cleaners. (This is completely off topic, but one of my favourite German words is the one for vacuum cleaner: “der Staubsauger” which translates literally as “the dust sucker.” All in all, a much more descriptive name than “vacuum cleaner,” I would say. And then there’s the German word for light bulb: “die Glühbirne” which translates literally as “the glow pear.” Just saying…) As of Monday, Sept.

1, 2014, the European Union has banned the manufacture and importation of all vacuum cleaners that consume more than 1,600 watts of energy. That maximum power limit will drop to 900 watts in the EU as of Sept. 1, 2017. Now I don’t really know what that means. My TV is listed as being 75 watts and the electric kettle is 1500 watts, but my Electrolux canister vacuum cleaner is so old it doesn’t even list wattage in the specifications — although, using the amp conversion formula from this useful website , it appears to be in the 1200-watt range. (The Electrolux is so old it was made in Marietta, Georgia, back in the days before everything electrical was manufactured on the far side of the Pacific. But as long as I can still buy dust bags to fit it, I’m sure it will outlive me. And it still sucks the dust just fine.) UPDATE: As I said, once it happens in Europe it will eventually happen in North America — perhaps sooner than you think.

I never knew Electrolux was a Swedish born and bred company, but it is — and it is now taking over GE Appliances solidifying its position as the No. 2 home appliance manufacturer in the world after Whirlpool. I checked out a few rather good new vacuum cleaners earlier today and most of the ones I saw were in the 1200- to 1400-watt range, so they would be safe within the 1600-watt parameter. Not so much so when the 900-watt limit kicks in, however. And I am reliably informed that current top-end vacuum cleaners average 1800 watts with 2000-watt models being relatively common. On one British consumer advocacy group’s best-buy list, five of the seven top vacuum cleaners exceed the new 1600-watt limit. As a result, there’s been a bit of a buying frenzy in Europe — especially in Britain — for high-wattage vacuum cleaners over the past month. There might even be a bit of hoarding going on, much as there was with incandescent light bulbs.

Since energy-conservation moves in Europe seem to make their way into North American practice with roughly a five-year lag, that should mean we’ll be seeing the Staubsauger wattage restrictions here sometime around 2019 or 2020. Should we be worried? Should we be watting up now in preparation for a future world overwhelmed by rampant dust bunnies? Frankly, I don’t think so. As far as I can tell, 1600 watts — or even 900 watts — should provide a fairly normal, non-obsessive person with enough suction power to keep one’s home environment healthy and presentable. But, as I said, I don’t really know about these things. I am, however, quite willing to listen to an expert in the field. I am referring to Sir James Dyson, inventor of the revolutionary cyclonic Dyson vacuum cleaner, a man so justly famous for his contributions to dust-sucking — and British dust-sucking, in particular — that he was knighted by Elizabeth Regina for his efforts. Sir James has assured Britons fearful of losing their suction that less power doesn’t necessarily mean lower performance.

As Sir James points out, his company has never made a vacuum cleaner with more than 1400 watts. “It’s a myth that bigger is better … It is intelligent engineering that leads to high cleaning performance, not energy-thirsty motors.” That being said, Dyson is not happy with a lot of the assumptions and methodology included in the current EU vacuum-cleaner legislation. He says the new standards “mislead people by overstating the energy efficiency of old-fashioned technology” and won’t actually lead to better vacuum cleaners or reduced energy consumption. So he’s seeking judicial review of the new regulations. Judgement is expected to be handed down toward the end of 2015. Vacuum cleaners are actually the thin end of the wedge. The European Union has a list of 30 other household appliances — ranging from hairdryers to toasters to lawn mowers — currently up for “discussion,” with that list to be culled down to 20 next year for probable wattage restrictions. One waits with bated breath. In the meantime, I don’t think we have anything to worry about immediately. Just suck it up and carry on.

Short Sharp Science: Bye bye to the 100W bulb Bye bye to the 100W bulb 18:20 1 September 2009 Environment Shanta Barley, reporter Europeans bid farewell to the 100 watt bulbs today. From now on, Edison's brainchild can no longer be legally made in or imported into the European Union, thanks to a Union-wide ban which kicks off today. Shed a tear, but don't let your sentimentality tempt you into smuggling one into the EU under your jumper: you'll be hit with a £5000 fine , according to The Daily Telegraph. That's the price for individuals caught transgressing the ban. Companies will face unlimited fines. The EU hopes that the ban on incandescent light bulbs will force businesses and consumers to invest in low-carbon Light Emitting Diodes and Compact Fluorescent Lamps , which use up to 80 per cent less energy. The ban could save the EU anywhere from 15 to 53 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, says Matt Prescott , founder of the Ban the Bulb campaign. And the UK could save 2 to 5 million tonnes of the stuff, he says.

Will it make a difference? You decide: the ban will cut Britain's yearly emissions of CO2 by - oh, about 0.643737355 per cent. tags

Question: The European Union banned the manufacture of which wattage incandescent light-bulb in 2009?
Answer: 100 watt