Recommended NZ | Guide to Money | Gimme: Competitions - Giveaways

Global Phase-Out Of Old Bulbs Announced By UN, GEF, And Industry

Read More:
Contributor:
Voxy News Engine
Voxy News Engine
Global Phase-Out Of Old Bulbs Announced By UN, GEF, And Industry

Washington DC/Nairobi, 25 September 2009 - A new global initiative to accelerate the uptake of low energy light bulbs and efficient lighting systems was launched today by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

The close to $20 million initiative, the Global Market Transformation for Efficient Lighting Platform that will be implemented in collaboration with the private sector companies OSRAM and Philips, is aimed at reducing the bills of electricity consumers in developing economies while delivering cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases.

It is also aimed at replacing fuel-based lighting systems, such as kerosene, that is linked with health-hazardous indoor air pollution.

Globally, 70% of total lighting market sales are still made up of inefficient incandescent lamps. A market shift, from incandescent lamps to energy-efficient alternatives, would cut the world's electricity demand for lighting by an estimated 18%.

A recent report by US Global Industry Analysts Inc indicates that by 2010, the industrial, commercial, residential, and public lighting market will exceed 94 USD billion with a large part of the growth in developing economies.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, said: "In many ways the way we light our homes and buildings is akin to still driving around in steam-powered cars or communicating by telegram".

"This new project aims to accelerate growing national initiatives to replace old bulbs into a global one by overcoming market barriers in developing economies and by setting international energy and performance standards in order to build consumer confidence. In terms of climate change, this is among the lowest of low hanging fruit. Eight per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions are linked with lightingthis project can by 2014 make a big dent in these while saving people money too," he added.

"This is the time to move forward with a concerted and synergetic approach that truly transforms this market in both the developed and developing world. That's why we are launching this global initiative to bring the major global players together to phase-out inefficient lighting once and for all," said Monique Barbut, CEO and Chairperson, the Global Environment Facility.

Using current economic and energy efficiency trends, it is projected that global demand for artificial light will be 80% higher by 2030 with a great deal of that linked to the construction and operation of new buildings in developing economies including China.

If lighting technologies and efficiencies do not improve, global lighting electricity demand will reach almost twice the output of all modern nuclear power plants amounting to 4,250 terawatt-hours (TWh), according to the GEF.

Energy saving lights, known as compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), are designed to replace incandescent lamps. Some 25% of the energy consumed by CFLs is converted to visible light, compared to only 5% for an incandescent lamp.

Up to 95% of the energy emitted by incandescent lamps is heat, and their efficiency is inherently low. Comparing the two types of lighting, incandescent bulbs last around 1,000 hours, which is significantly shorter than energy saving lamps, with life spans of 6,000 to 12,000 hours.

"There is growing momentum now, and a very aggressive timeline to address the emerging issues of climate change. We have learned a lot in Europe and the United States over the past few years, and need to apply that in the emerging marketplaces of developing countries," said Kaj den Daas, CEO, Philips Lighting North America. "We have also made great innovative strides in addressing solutions where there is no access to the energy grid. With more than 1.6 billion people living without electricity today in developing areas, there is a growing need to deploy new products, and a growing desire amongst people to experience the benefits of being able to cook, eat, socialize, and for children to do their homework at night safely and conveniently, for the very first time."

OSRAM representative Martin Goetzeler, CEO said: "Developing and promoting more efficient lighting products has always been part of OSRAM's DNA. We not only encourage developing countries to partake in the economic benefits of efficient lighting, but we also feel responsible in supporting the implementation of a holistic approach to make light as environmentally friendly as possible and available to all social strata."

He added: "The lever is enormous. Over 1/3 of the electricity used worldwide for lighting today could be saved. That corresponds to half the electricity consumption of China."

In 2003, the provision of artificial light was estimated to require the equivalent of approximately 650 million tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe), which was equivalent to 8.9% of total global primary energy consumption. Globally, lighting-related CO2 emissions are estimated at 1,900 million tons (Mt) of CO2, equivalent to approximately 8% of world emissions.

Several countries are now phasing-out incandescent light bulbs with Ireland, Australia, Argentina, and the Philippines set to achieve this goal in early 2010.

Recent legislation in the United States will phase out the least efficient lamps by 2014, starting with the phase out of the standard 100-Watt incandescent by 2012. The European Union is starting the process in 2009.

The new global project, which will include a centre of excellence of lighting, will build on and support further commercialization and market penetration among several developing countries that have already made efforts to promote the adoption of CFLs and to phase-out incandescent lampssome with GEF support and the involvement of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

These include Cuba and Venezuela, which have begun installing energy efficient lighting and others such as China, Vietnam, Morocco, Bhutan, Mauritania, Cote d'Ivoire, and Jordan. At present China and Vietnam are already executing projects that were approved by the GEF; proposals for projects in other countries are under preparation and/or have been submitted to the GEF for approval. The platform will also coordinate and liaise with energy efficient lighting projects in other countries that are supported by other organizations.

Historically, the main barrier hampering the deployment of energy efficient lighting products was their high initial cost.

When first launched in the early 1980s, CFLs were 20 to 30 times more expensive to produce than their incandescent equivalents. However, CFL costs have steadily declined through use and increased competition. They now retail for about four times the price of an incandescent lamp.

Consumers have traditionally been slow to come on board and according to some reports, were initially unimpressed by early models, disliking the look and functionality of these models.

Manufacturers are of the view that consumers need to understand how using energy saving bulbs will allow for long term cost savings, as well as be assured of the quality and reliability of new models, as well as the growing number of energy saving options that are and will become available. One promising innovation is the development of solid state lighting (SSL).

This technology is expected to achieve efficiencies at least ten times higher than incandescent lamps, and up to twice as high as fluorescent lamps.

Light Emitting Diode (LED) lamps, aside from not containing mercury have other advantages such as a long life, a warm light color similar to incandescent lamps, low heat generation, and the ability to work with dimming switches in certain lamps.

Comments

Any ban on incandescent

Any ban on incandescent lights is lunacy,
driven by a manufacturing profit making agenda
(Note: "the Global Market Transformation for Efficient Lighting Platform that will be implemented in collaboration with the private sector companies OSRAM and Philips")

The ban is wrong from any perspective you wish to take.
Using the EU and the USA, as examples:

Europeans (like Americans) choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 8 to 9 times out of 10 ( light industry and european commission 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 etc - are as good as manufacturers say,
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/tubes were banned… they were bought less anyway.

The need to save energy?
Advice is good and welcome, but bans are another matter...
people -not politicians – pay for energy, its production, and how they wish to use it.
There is no energy shortage - on the contrary, more and more renewable sources are being developed -
and if there was an energy shortage of the finite oil-coal-gas fuels,
then
1 renewable energy becomes more attractive price-wise
2 the fuel price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products – no need to legislate for it.

Supposed savings don’t hold up anyway, for many reasons:
http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x
= comparative brightness, lifespans, power factors, lifecycles, etc with referenced research

About electricity bills:
If electricity use falls, the power companies have to put up prices to cover their overheads, maintenance costs, wage bills etc (using less fuel doesn't compensate much in overall costs). As with any other consumption, those who use less tend to have to pay more per unit used (and heavy users get discounts).

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.

Direct ways to deal with emissions,
with a focus on transport and electricity:
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x

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.
This is simply a ban to (supposedly) reduce electricity consumption.

Even for those who remain pro-ban, taxation to reduce any such consumption would be fairer and make more sense, also 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 euros/dollars tax that reduces the current sales (EU like the USA 2 billion sales per annum, UK 250-300 million pa)
raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.
It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.
When sufficent low emission electricity delivery is in place, the ban can be lifted
http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html

Taxation is itself unjustified, it is simply a better alternative for all concerned than bans.

Of course an EU ban is underway, but in phases, supposedly with reviews in a couple of years time...

Maybe the debate in other countries will be affected by the issues being raised over here?

Competitions and Giveaways from Gimme.co.nz

Popular competitions and giveaways from Gimme.co.nz: NZ's People Powered Guide to Free Stuff.  Links will open on Gimme.

Featured Recommendations from recommended.co.nz

All articles and comments on Voxy.co.nz have been submitted by our community of users. Please notify us through our contact form if you believe an item on this site breaches our community guidelines.