Eco Bulbs
I use eco bulbs at home, because it was my choice. The Government of course is passing a law to make them compulsory, regardless of whether or not people want them.
So it is unfortunate for the Government that they may burn your house down!
The memo, of which The Dominion Post has a copy, warns that compact fluorescent lamps, or eco bulbs, are reported to be melting, blowing up and blackening surrounding electrical equipment.
The concerns have been passed on to the Fire Service by Energy Safety, two months after Energy Minister David Parker announced plans to phase out traditional bulbs in favour of eco bulbs. …
There were reports that eco bulbs had burnt out and scorched fittings, causing smoke stains, and in a few cases they had caught fire.
People should send any charred furniture or fittings to the Minister.
August 15th, 2008 at 8:17 am
hmm, thats a bit freaky. I have put 38 of them in at my place, cant say i have noticed a lower power bill, dont like the light very much, and the life doesnt seem to be all that great either, I’ve had 4 blow so far. But I guess its been at least 2 years.
No meltdowns yet (touch wood)
August 15th, 2008 at 8:18 am
DPF said: The Government of course is passing a law to make them compulsory, regardless of whether or not people want them.
That’s not true DPF. Under the Efficient Lighting Strategy the old incandencent bulbs will not meet the proposed efficiency standards. But there will still be a range of lighting options. High efficacy halogens will meet the standards, along with CFLs, so there will still be choice.
Incidentally, I have experienced on 3 occasions incandescents exploding when they are switched on with glass flying everywhere – in one instance I was cut by it. So this sort of occasional problem is not unique to CFLs and I suspect this is a beat-up from luddites who don’t want to move on from old and inefficient technology (even though it is cheaper to run more efficient lighting), just as the scaremongering about mercury in CFLs is.
Even if we moved entirely to CFLs and evey one of them ended up going into landfill (persish the thought), there would still be less mercury entering the waste stream because of reduced dependence on coal-fired electricity generation which is a significant emitter of mercury into the environment.
August 15th, 2008 at 8:19 am
so actually it is true toad – how many high efficient halogens fit in a standard bayonet fitting?
August 15th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Even taking into account the cost of changing all the fitting (which in most houses you could do in a couple of hours), using them will be cheaper than continuing to run incandescents.
August 15th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Anyone interested in scientific research surrounding CFL bulbs can read here:
http://www.thebriefingroom.com/archives/2008/08/mercury_in_cfls.html
Turns out they aren’t cheaper to run at all. Fizzing and burning your house down is the least of the problems.
August 15th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Not to mention that Eco Bulbs are ugly ass. If you spend all day in office tower blocks under strip lights why would you want to head home and replicate the situation?
Is National going to scrap this silly law or “Me too” it?
August 15th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Toad>Incidentally, I have experienced on 3 occasions incandescents exploding when they are switched on with glass flying everywhere – in one instance I was cut by it.
That has never happened to we even once in 40 years. Do you work for Mythbusters and blew them up as some sort of test?
August 15th, 2008 at 10:07 am
We’ve only got eco bulbs because Labour wouldn’t agree to the Green’s plan of hurricane lanterns and candles…
August 15th, 2008 at 10:07 am
I have had CFL’s explode on me before, and incandescents, but I can say the CFL was louder & flew further.
But on the matter of burning, I assume insurance companies will put up premiums to cover the extra risk, can we all send our insurance bills to the minister with a note for him to pay the extra?
So how much of our block of cheese tax cut Labour is going to so graciously give us has now been taken up with price rises? Many of which have been due to govt policy changes.
I’d hazzard a guess at at least half
August 15th, 2008 at 10:14 am
The draconian and naive move to compulsory CFL’s looks decidedly shaky as more research is conducted. The Maine environmental agency has published results that are alarming to say the least. Completely independently, Brown University’s research confirms the threats and problems. So, a public and a private institution has conducted research independently, and found worrying results. We posted a summary yesterday at http://jtcontracelsum.blogspot.com/2008/08/eco-light-bulbs-more-warnings.html
August 15th, 2008 at 10:18 am
toad: “Even taking into account the cost of changing all the fitting (which in most houses you could do in a couple of hours), using them will be cheaper than continuing to run incandescents.”
You often make sense but that is a classic example of central/local government thinking. “It’s easy, just spend more of your own money to fix a problem that doesn’t exist but we have now created”.
Owning a 120 year old Ponsonby villa with wiring from various decades (in fact different centuries) I can pretty much guarantee that if we had to change all our light fittings to take compact fluros that it would be more than a 2 hour job and it would probably mean a complete rewire to satisfy the building code rules that apply once you make any significant changes. Easy ( & cheap) for Wellington to say: bloody expensive for already over-burdened taxpayers to implement.
August 15th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Toad, you Greenies are usually all over issues like potential mercury poisoning. Yet in this case, it is obviously political expedience to ignore the hazards of technology that you guys are in the process of mandating. Another typical example of Green tampering having worse consequences than the “problems” they were alleging to address in the first place.
So incandescents explode and shower bits of broken glass all over the place too, do they? SPAR. The whole point of this argument is; do they set fire to the house; and do they poison you?
Mr Farrar seems to be following his usual pattern of meekly going along with the socialists blacking out debate on anything that has been publicised by I. Wishart. (Mercury poisoning in this case).
August 15th, 2008 at 10:58 am
The classic case of Green party falsehoods being rammed onto innocents,
How about the cost to the environment to make the stupid CFL bulbs anyway.
I’m all for saving power but this is a stupid as bio -fuel make bio fuel to save the planet and sign the death warrent for millions of starving third world victims. Who cares – the Green party no way they would rather save the planet than mankind!!
August 15th, 2008 at 10:59 am
As always the Social Engineers, are way behind the new wave of technology!
Halogens were once seen as the best solution in Kitchens and Bathrooms, and now the latest LED clusters are so much more
efficient.
Can’t be arsed justifying the physics, there are too many twitchers able to get the Physics lowdown on the reasons why.
My rage is centred around the lack of choice that Gummint seek to impose.
In the UK, they are banging on about the same bollocks, and yet for 5 weeks a years the State House Munchkins try and fuck the
National Grid by having as many Festive Lights on their Houses. They say nothing whilst we observe the pond life illuminate ‘me estate’.
Energy Conservation is laudable, but let the market decide, and don’t let people waste energy just because they are smack in your Labour Heartlands.
Bar Stewards!
August 15th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Don’t worry Philbest, once everyone has CFL’s in their homes, the Total Harmonic Distortion caused by them will crash the national grid and disrupt National’s new broadband plans. “People” interested in the internet will be pretty concerned by then.
August 15th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Oh dear! I too have had them throughout my home for a couple of years, haven’t had any problems so won’t be “switching” back to the old ones.
When they are running normally they seem to be much cooler than old-fashioned bulbs, and I always thought this made them safer.
OTOH, I have had a couple of ***spectacular*** failures of old-fashioned bulbs over the years, so I’m not convinced they’re all that much safer…
August 15th, 2008 at 11:59 am
I suggest that all dead CFLs be mailed to Jeanette F or David Parker to dispose of.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Candles are so much more romantic!
Let’s go back to basics.
The greens want us to!
They are always right.
Tui Advert.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Major B – why not send them back to Philips (or whichever manufacturer?)
After all aren’t they the ones who are making a living selling you a product that may have a fault in it?
August 15th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Wonder how life is on planet Glutaemus…
August 15th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sciencetech/article-506347/An-energy-saving-bulb-gone–evacuate-room-now.html
August 15th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
RRM, I’m not talking about a fault. I’m talking about disposing of a hazardous waste (a CFL bulb that has done its dash, lived it pale life in a munted shape and expired). My council has no facilities in place to handle CFLs, so I bet they are all going into the landfill.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
First attempt didn’t work…
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sciencetech/article-506347/An-energy-saving-bulb-gone–evacuate-room-now.html
August 15th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
The DomPost article is a beat up. The Fire Service is very clear that there have been no fires found to be caused by CFLs – which have been onsale and in use in NZ for over 10 years – but the Fire Service will also tell you that there are a number of house fires each year caused by the good old incandescent bulbs. If you think otherwise then try this simple test … turn a 100W incandescent lightbulb on for 10 minutes and then grab it with all fingers. Try the same test with a 20W CFL and I can guarantee you you’ll avoid the trip to A&E.
That’s not to say that CFLs can’t fail. And often the failure is in the (quite complex) electronics in the plastic base of the bulb, so you can get a bit of smoke and scorching. But the allegation that they’re causing house fires is completely spurious.
If every incandescent light in NZ was switched out for energy efficient lights we’d avoid the need for about 500MW of generating capacity. On those grounds it seems a sensible decision to impose higher efficiency standards.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Stephen,
Life on planet Glutaemus is relaxed and dandy, until dimwits tell me how to run my life.
All for energy conservation. Hate pollution and waste.
Having ‘Green’ measures imposed on me, and my family that are fatuous, popularist, and bollocks upsets me.
Hearing that the Chelsea Flower Show banned Patio Heaters because of AGW makes my blood boil.
What a crock of S**t.
What amount of therms makes a difference to Global Temperatures, when the 3rd World does what it does in a desperate attempt to catch up.
We have those CFL bulbs outside to keep the Pikeys away. No other reason!
August 15th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Toad, Bryan Spondre … why do you need to change out your light fittings? The CFLs come in standard screw & bayonet mountings, and the new CFLs are small enough to comfortably fit inside recessed housings.
John Tertullian … yes there’s mercury in CFLs, but in nearly all modern CFLs it’s in a solid amalgam which then vapourises as the bulb lights. The way CFLs are constructed the glass should only break during handling – there’s nothing going on in the light that should be able to break the glass when its operating (no moving parts, no heat stress etc etc). So research talking about mercury vapour in the room may not be up to date. Added to which … the real mercury problems we all face are primarily from dental amalgam (hard to worry about 1.5mg in a lightbulb when we have far more than that in our mouths), from fish and from atmospheric mercury from burning coal.
Glutaemus Maximus … LEDs are as efficient as CFLs, on a lumens/Watt kind of basis, but woeful on lumens/$. An LED replacement for a good old 100W incandescent lightbulb costs well over $100. They’re good for some applications, but are a long way from being viable for regular home lighting.
goodGod … you’re on to it. The major operational problem with most – but not all – CFLs is that they cause problems with the distribution network.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Don’t be too hard in the Greens. There are a small number with genuine (and rational) concern for the environment.
However I do feel a bit sorry for that group.. because the balance of the party is stuffed to the gunnels with former communists, far-left socialists and uber-liberals all clinging together under a convenient, easy-to-spin environmental banner in the hope of one day wielding some real power.
With that as a backdrop we can expect reality to take a backseat while the MSM blindly echoes the flannel we’ve heard in respect of wacko-blubs.
Oh, and good job by the much-maligned Ian Wishart for some proper investigative journalism on this topic.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
The law banning incandescent lights is unnecessary interference.
If better lights were available that appeal to consumers, they would buy them. But efficiency is only one of the measures of “better”. There are factors such as:
Life
Brightness
Colour
Aesthetics (does it look appealing?)
Time to reach brightness
Flicker
Availability
Coupling (does it screw into my light fittings?)
Safety
Disposal
The danger is that if the governmentt gets away with this, what is next on the list…
How about banning desktop computers, because laptop computers use less electricity?
Ban flat-screen televisions over 40 inches?
Ban cars with 8 cylinders or more?
Ban jet-skis?
Ban jet-planes?
They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far and no further! [Picard, concerning the Borg in "Star Trek: First Contact"]
August 15th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Eco-bulbs warm up to full brightness a lot quicker than candles (which is what you’ll be using if electricity demand continues to grow faster than supply!) and they also flicker much less than candles too.
If you can get a 23 Watt light that does basically the same job as a 100 Watt one, then is the Labour approach of trying to reduce demand at the same time as increasing supply REALLY as irrational as people make out? People moan at length about how there aren’t enough new power plants because (in their expert opinions on environment court proceedings) it is “too” hard for these projects to get consented.
So, why not attempt to reduce the demand from home lighting by 75%, when this is a solution that can be readily delivered by Woolworths and The Warehouse?
Or is it, as your Captain Picard (FFS!!!) would have it, really all about suppressing YOUR FREEDOM? Please.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Have no intention of being assimilated!
The biggest waste in kiwi homes is the lack of double, or indeed triple glazing.
The Gummint are now on to it. Hurrah.
Been standard in Europe for 30 years or so.
UK for at least 25.
There needs to be grants to retro-fit D/G
Or break out the hot water bottles, electric blankets, and hurricane lamps
August 15th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
And if we all swap to candles, as the ecomentalists who tried to celebrate Earth Hour did for an hour, what effect will that have on CO2 production? (Not that I care squat about CO2 levels, unless they drop too low and we die because the plants cannot survive.)
If a 23W bulb does what a 100W bulb does, IN ALL RESPECTS, then I’m happy to buy them. As of now, I am not convinced, and I refuse to buy any more CFLs. I will have to resort to buying incandescent bulbs on the “light market”, if they are made illegal. Will Customs sieze any that are bought overseas? Will a new layer of bureaucracy be empowered to forcibly enter my house and arrest me if they find any incandescent bulbs?
Yes, it is about Freedom. The government should not be in the electricity market at all. Leave me alone to buy power from my choice of supplier.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Glutaemus, the Greens got grants for the state houses to be retrofitted, and 50% subsidies for others (not that landlords are particularly keen on ever doing that)
August 15th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Ian Wishart’s investigative journalism is very awry with these energy efficient lightbulbs. I noted in an earlier comment that the mercury is in solid amalgam form, not vapour. Certainly if a CFL breaks then it’s prudent to take reasonable steps when cleaning it up. But read http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf for an alternative view on mercury in CFLs.
As I said earlier … the real mercury health problems come from dental amalgam and from eating fish. I’m awaiting Ian’s breathless missive on those major threats to our health.
As for “banning” the incandescent bulb … all that Labour have done is introduced a higher standard of energy efficiency for lighting. It doesn’t ban the incandescent bulb at all – in fact there are “high tech” incandescents that can meet the new standards. I don’t see the problem with promoting energy efficiency. There’s large sectors of the population quick to complain about the price of electricity … well, how about we make changes so we use less of it and can retire the costliest generating plants?
August 15th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
how about you fuck off and if you want to use these new bulbs go for it. if those of us who are not convinced are wrong then we will lose out.
but either way there is no need to change the law to make us use them, if they are as good as people say we would be mugs not to.
why can;t lefties stand by what they beleive in without forcing us to do what they say? if what they want is so great then everyone will follow suit, right?
August 15th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Grendel, I’m no leftie, but I’m not irrational either. The raw facts are this:
* The Fire Service can’t point to any house fires caused by energy efficient lightbulbs. The article this thread is based on is a beat up.
* They can point you to house fires caused by incandescent lightbulbs.
* The Ian Wishart article that people are pointing to is heavily flawed and doesn’t tell the whole story.
* No one is changing the law to ban incandescent lightbulbs, or telling you what you have to buy. The Govt are raising a minimum standard, in the exact same way that we have standards for everything from food safety to medicines to child seats to car warrant of fitness’s. The reaction to this particular change of standards seems out of proportion to the change being introduced.
* Improving the energy efficiency of household lights will cost no more than $150 million and save about 500MW of peak generating capacity. The last power plant built in NZ generates 385MW, cost $520 million to build, and costs about a hundred million a year to run. You do the math on the sensible choices here.
Try arguing the facts, rather than ranting.
August 15th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Apparently there’s a planet MajorBloodnok now too. It doesn’t matter if the govt is in the market through SOEs or not – if some gits are using standard energy sucking bulbs, they’re increasing the price of my electricity through spot prices and the necessity to build more generation to meet the demand. Not cool.
August 15th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
well, how about we make changes so we use less of it and can retire the costliest generating plants?
Only if we can make similarly make reductions to our oldest and costliest politicians!
No, she won’t go voluntarily. Why should we reduce power consumption? I don’t want major industries abandoning NZ and moving to China because we don’t have sufficient energy generation capacity. These are large taxpayers that are contributing to yours and my standard of living.
If you take away all the subsidies (that end up coming from the taxpayers anyway), how much are the bird-mincing generators costing? And when you factor in the cost of the base-load power stations that are needed because wind is so unreliable?
August 15th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I learned quite a bit by reading this. I’d be interested to know where you feel it’s heavily flawed. In terms of the ‘whole story’ it certainly appears to be more comprehensive than what’s been made available by the MSM and/or Government.
August 15th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Getstaffed, without wanting to write something as long as Ian Wishart’s article …
1. “Cost ordinary households thousands of dollars”. The average house has about 30 light fittings, so even at full retail of $8 a pop it’d only cost $250 or so to replace all your lightbulbs in one swoop. Then consider the average home should save at least $20 a month on their power bill if they change their whole house. So thousands of dollars seems a bit emotive & breathless to me.
2. “US authorities don’t recommend use in children’s rooms or over carpeted areas because of toxic hazard”. The EPA recommends widespread use of CFLs, and I’ve not seen them caveat that about children’s rooms or carpeted areas.
3. “the latest scientific tests in the US prove the mercury in one broken bulb can irreparably contaminate a carpet. In the US insurance companies are refusing to cover the cost of replacing carpets”. Well, insurance companies will try anything to get out of paying out.
4. “It is normal for CFL bulbs to physically burn up at the end of their natural life. Although rare, in some cases this has led to house fires”. Really??? CFLs would never have made it through stringent testing like the ISO, NZ, Energy Star and UL standards if they did indeed regularly “physically burn up at the end of their natural life”. Ian needs to breath through a paper bag for a while. No product of any type would be allowed on retail shelves if that were true for that product. Since CFLs are on sale I’d suggest Ian’s got it wrong.
5. “The burnt plastic and gases emitted when lights burn out are carcinogenic”. Well, CFL tubes don’t burn out, they’re cold. The plastic on the housing could always burn though I guess, and that, like any other plastic might be carcinogenic. Should we be banning all plastics?
6. “Although many bulbs claim 6,000 hours (five years’ use) or greater, this is based on ideal laboratory conditions. Some bulbs have died within 12 months in household use”. CFLs don’t like being rapidly turned on and off and on and off and on and off … so I’m quite okay that in some settings they won’t last the full 6,000 life. That’s true. Some bulbs may have died within 12 months, because they had manufacturing faults, or they were used in a way CFLs aren’t suited to. No problems with that. But how many is “some”? 5%? 10%? Should we write off their proven energy efficiency benefits on this basis?
7. “Household CFLs are widely known to cause interference to wireless networks, electronic appliances, hot water cylinders and cordless phones”. Very old CFLs did this. Today’s testing standards specifically test for RF interference. Unsure how on earth they affected hot water cylinders though … perhaps the radio in my hot water cylinder is just permanently broken …
8. “NZ Government briefing papers disclose major concerns that CFLs could cause regular widespread power outages because of a peculiar side-effect known as harmonic distortion”. This is very true. On the whole CFLs cause major problems for the electricity distribution network. There’s only one brand of CFL in NZ that doesn’t cause these problems.
9. “Some US states now require homeowners to drive old CFL bulbs to a special recycling centre to avoid contaminating the environment”. That’s true too. And it’s being introduced in some parts of New Zealand too. But the underlying problem here, the mercury, needs to be considered in a balanced way not in a hystrionic way.
10. “The energy saving potential is of the order of 6% of domestic sector electricity use, or 2% of total electricity use”. The accepted figure is that lighting accounts for about 19% of global electricity, and low-teens figure of domestic electricity usage (that percentage moves around a bit, in winter when you’re using more heaters then fair enough lighting is a smaller percentage). Yep, I’m sure that Ian found one scientist to say 6%. And I could probably find a scientist who’d argue that vodka is good for my health. But the accepted figure is more than double that.
Then he moves to the mercury issue, which is far too long to cover fully here. From reading his stuff I suspect his article might be based on old information based on much earlier CFLs. These had mercury in its vapour form, so when you broke the glass you ran the risk of breathing in the mercury, which would be bad. They also had much higher mercury concentrations than modern CFLs.
Today’s good CFLs have about 1.5mg of mercury. An old thermometer had about 750mg. So if you replaced all 30ish lights in your home with CFLs you’d have about 1/15th the mercury of a single old mercury thermometer. And it’d be in a solid form similar to the fillings in your teeth. Fillings that probably have more mercury than all the mercury in those 30ish CFLs in your house. So we need to have a sense of proportion here.
The concern with CFLs is that the glass tube is fragile and so can be broken and the mercury released. That’s why the mercury is now in an amalgam rather than vapour or liquid.
Most of the mercury you’re ever going to have contact with will be in your teeth or in the fish that you eat. And most of the mercury in the fish that you eat got there because it was in coal that got burned in some power plant or factory – it just accumulates in the fish.
August 15th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
If that’s your version of ‘not long’ virtualmark…heh
edit: whoops, all sense of scale, not to mention space and time, is distorted a little on a blog. I imagine ian wrote a hell of a lot more.
August 15th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
If the govt wanted to encourage energy efficiency, surely they could have done it in other ways that I would argue were less invasive:
1. Carbon tax, leading to higher electricity cost, leading to greater incentive to get more energy efficient light bulbs. Effectively internalise the currently external cost of additional capacity and carbon emissions
2. Subsidy for more energy efficient light bulbs – if these cost the same as incandescent ones and use less power, everyone would buy them. Why not a subsidy instead of a regulation? There’d be no complaining from people “forced” to use them then
It is really about the way the Labour party think about incentives. The right incentive for Labour is regulation, instead of some other intervention that makes people work out the right answer themselves, and that leaves open the ability for people to, say, use an incandescent light bulb in the pantry – is only on for half a minute at a time, and a CFL wouldn’t even warm up. Or whatever other exceptions people might have.
August 15th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Bang on, but aren’t they already doing 1. with the rather more complicated ETS PaulL?
August 15th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
PaulL, the Government is providing subsidies too. For each of the last few years they’ve made extensive subsidies available and I understand that’ll likely ramp up as the new efficient lighting standard come into play next year. Many Kiwis have received mailouts with offers like “Take this voucher to New World and get 5 energy efficient lightbulbs for $10″.
There’s not a carbon tax as such, but the Government is devolving the national Kyoto commitments down to individual industries, including electricity generators. But that’s not due to come into force for a few more years.
Fundamentally, Governments set regulations in all sorts of areas, and they revise these regulations over time. All that’s happening here is that the regulations for lighting are being tightened up. There will still be incandescent bulbs that meet these new tighter regulations, so it’s not the “ban the bulb” law change that some people think it is.
August 15th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
PaulL … probably a good analogy for the new tighter lighting regulations is that it’s in many ways no different from today’s household insulation regs, which are quite a bit higher than the equivalent regs from 30 or 40 years ago (I know, this 95-year old house is bloody cold).
August 15th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Virtualmark,
Go read the Wishart story, then check his references. You’ll find that it’s your rebuttal that is flawed. Asking a question you don’t know the answer to, as a rebuttal of a statement you don’t agree with, doesn’t prove the statement is wrong.
As for “raising the standard is not a ban”…oh please. It just so happens that no easily available, cost effective, incandescent bulb will meet the standard and it will be prohibited to import them. Sounds like a ban. What part of “prohibited” allows choice, do you think? The government calls it a ban. Maybe the vocabulary “you point to is heavily flawed” ?
As a free thinking self proclaimed non-leftie (the most elite of lefties) you’ll be aware that “prohibiton doesn’t work”…Unless it’s to do with banning things under the guise of greenie policy – like potentially dangerous eco bulbs and drugs.
August 15th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
virtualmark – appreciate the detailed response. thanks.
August 15th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Goodgod, I’ve just read the original Maine study that Wishart was referring to (http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeowner/cflreport.htm).
The clear take-away I got from that report is that there’s a world of difference between CFLs with vapourised mercury and with amalgam. They only tested one CFL with amalgam (“Brand F”) and the mercury levels for that test were way way below the readings from the other brands (see page 34). I know that the good quality CFLs on sale today in NZ use amalgam. But older CFLs on sale say 3-5 years ago used mercury vapour. So it suggests to me that you’d want to be careful about breaking an older CFL, but that the new ones currently on the market are, while still worthy of careful handling, not a major catastrophe if broken.
Re “raising the standard is not a ban” … what surprises me is the level of angst this new lighting regulation is causing. Governments regulate. All the time. It’s their job. Those regulations inevitably reduce our choices. Why is this lighting regulation such a big deal compared to, say, car warrant of fitness standards?
Go back to my earlier comment to Grendel … Improving the energy efficiency of household lights will cost no more than $150 million and save about 500MW of peak generating capacity. The last power plant built in NZ generates 385MW, cost $520 million to build, and costs about a hundred million a year to run.
I wasn’t involved in bringing in these new regulations. But I can see the rationale for them.
August 15th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Look, why don’t we look at regulating hot showers? That would save far more megawatts than changing our lightbulbs. Or what about insisting on a certain number of meals a week to be salads or other meals that don’t require the use of electricity? Once we let down the barrier to Nanny State interference in our lives, where do we stop?
August 15th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Well, PhilBest, if you think you need more cold showers then do what you’ve got to do …
Personally … I think a lot of the pushback on the new lighting standards is because a sizeable sector of society is tired of the Labour party, and in particular tired of feeling that the Labour government is the “Nanny State” as you say. I think these lighting regs are uncontroversial in their own right, and would have been passed by National too. But for some people, particularly those eagerly looking forward to exercising their vote in a few weeks time, it’s a “straw that breaks the camels back” kind of story.
August 15th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
I just don’t see the need for a standard in energy efficiency, for that matter I don’t really see the need for an insulation standard. People should make these choices of their own accord – if I was building a house today (actually, I just renovated one) I would use fluorescents where appropriate (and I did). But where appropriate didn’t include the dimmable uplights around the outsides of the lounge, whilst it did include the main lights in the lounge. It didn’t include the light in the pantry that goes on and off when I opened the door, the damn thing would never warm up if it were a CFL.
I want the right to make those choices. I don’t want the government telling me what to do. If the govt subsidise the CFLs (and not some stupid voucher, but subsidise the importer so that they are all cheap everywhere all the time), I would still have put in incandescents in some spots in the house. But it would mean that 90% of the lights in 90% of people’s houses would be low power usage, and you would get that benefit in power generation. Instead of the govt forcing costs on us “for our own good” the government would be subsidising something that they think is good for the country as a whole. See the difference?
August 15th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
PaulL said: If the govt wanted to encourage energy efficiency, surely they could have done it in other ways that I would argue were less invasive: 1. Carbon tax, leading to higher electricity cost, leading to greater incentive to get more energy efficient light bulbs. Effectively internalise the currently external cost of additional capacity and carbon emissions…
Yep, that was and always has been the Greens’ first option. But the Labour Party caved in on it, because NZ First and United Future wouldn’t run with it. So now we’re all still pissing around with ETS options – National opposes Labour’s, but won’t reveal any detail of their own. Jeanette Fitzsimons wrote to John Key asking for some detail of what National proposed, but he declined to provide any. The Greens are sceptical about the efficacy of what both Labour and National might want to implement re an ETS, but at least Labour has something on the table for the Greens to negotiate over.
Get the Greens up around 15% of the vote at the next election, and the carbon tax option can be back on the agenda again.
August 15th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
I’m sick of politicians thinking they know better than anyone else, especially on how to spend my money.
The last power plant built in NZ generates 385MW, cost $520 million to build, and costs about a hundred million a year to run.
So what? Generating power is a business. People should be allowed to generate power and sell it, to others who want to buy it at a price they agree on. I don’t want the govt to run the power stations.
Governments regulate. All the time. It’s their job.
No, it is not. Their job is to do what the people of NZ elect them to do. Sadly, the govt appears to measure its own “effectiveness” by the number of bills it passes. All that does is encroach more and more into the lives of the productive, in favour of the unproductive. (No wonder so many of the productive are deciding to emigrate.)
August 15th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Politically correct bloody light bulbs.
Our country is becoming a farce.
If ANY other mass produced item that would ultimately end up in a landfill had a fraction of the mercury that CFLs do, the greens would be having a a fit.
But along comes the pseudo green come communist politics, and all of a sudden poisonous inferior light bulbs are the only real option to save the planet.
WE NEED MORE INTELLIGENCE IN NZ, AND FAST.
August 15th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Toad: if that were Green’s only policy I’d think about it. But I couldn’t stomach the other red stuff that you care about, the green bit is fine. Like I’ve said before, you’ll never be over about 8% whilst your politics are to the red side of Labour.
August 15th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
PaulL don’t worry they won’t even get 5% as all the Green Party candidates will be called up for service invading Georgia shortly.
August 15th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Virtualmark…with the greatest of respect, before engaging mouth please ensure your factual assimilation matrix is in gear.
I didn’t just pluck the figures out of the air, or from some disgruntled scientist. The endnotes for the article reference them. The 2% savings figure, for example, is from an official government advisory written by scientists.
New Zealand doesn’t have exclusive access to the world’s best CFL maker…all of us are getting our bulbs largely from the same sources. The bulbs tested in Maine were those avail on the US market towards the end of last year…not from five years ago. Some are the same as those sold here. The ones tested by Brown University are those available this year on the US market.
Read the studies properly, not just cherry-picking to suit your argument. I interviewed members of the Lighting Council directly. They didn’t have the glib list you’ve thrown up, and I suspect they are more au fait with the issue.
You also need to read the studies more carefully. You talk of the “amalgam” lamp releasing less mercury. It was actually a specialised CFL for use in dimmers, with advanced amalgam vapour control technology. It was the only lamp with that tech. If you read the paragraph below, you’ll see most or all of the lamps in the study were common or garden variety “amalgam” lamps, just as we have here:
“The one scenario where a vapor control amalgam technology lamp was broken suggests that this type of CFL may emit less mercury vapor on breakage and may present fewer cleanup challenges than certain other CFLs. However, this study did not test enough of this type of
amalgam technology lamps to draw any significant conclusions. Researchers believe that most lamps used in the study were manufactured with either liquid dosing or solid or “pellet” dosing amalgam technology, a method for introducing a limited amount of mercury into a CFL during
manufacture. More research is needed for a meaningful assessment of amalgam technologies.
“In addition, this study cracked a lamp (Scenario J) to see if less mercury would be released than from a thoroughly broken lamp, and this study broke two lamps that had been turned on and were warm or “hot” (SD and SD duplicate) to see if there was a difference from the “cold” lamps
that were broken in the study. Although the results from those three trials did not appear to be different from other trials, more data is needed to make findings”
So thanks for your input Virtualmark…now read it more carefully.
cheers
Ian
August 15th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Is virtualmark a policy analyst?
August 16th, 2008 at 12:02 am
toad “Get the Greens up around 15% of the vote at the next election, and the carbon tax option can be back on the agenda again.”
Or better yet get ACT up around 15% and get the whole carbon tax/ETS/AGW bullshit thrown out the window altogether.
August 16th, 2008 at 12:46 am
“Anyone interested in scientific research surrounding CFL bulbs can read here:”
Really, this is not scientific at all. I have been using CFLs for years and have no concerns about them. Investigate repeats huge and misleading urban legend about a situation in Maine that is not accurate. There is an awful lot of scaremongering in the whole article. The stuff about the bulbs burning out and melting is not normal at all. I have never seen any of these bulbs do any such thing. The article is way too long, I have no idea what they filled it up with as I have turned off reading it all.
August 16th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Swampy, get a grip. Both yourself and Virtualmark have made loose assertions without being prepared to actually read what I wrote. Your comments on the worth of the article are accordingly meaningless.
According to US authorities, the burnout is part of what happens when the bulb carks it.
If you’d read the article, you’d have seen this before making yourself look foolish. The magazine article is full of photos of burnt CFL bulbs, and the Otago Daily Times has printed its own eyewitness stories on burnt out bulbs.
The Energy Safety Service told me they’d seen examples in NZ.
Stop being so vacuous.
August 16th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
This does sound a lot like a repeat of Global Warming denial. All of a sudden a bunch of people rush out from the woodwork with a whole lot of studies, and people rarely investigate them objectively. Worse still, magazines don’t need to perform a deep investigation – they can just stop as soon as they reach the “controversial finding” stage. Non-controversial findings don’t sell as many copies, and some simply don’t concern themselves with the accuracy of what they print.
On the Mercury – if you’re in a part of the country receiving power from Huntly, then using a CFL will release less mercury into the atmosphere, because of the reduced amount of mercury released by the lower amount of power required. There’s a reference on Wikipedia’s CFL article for that one. Most of the few milligrams of mercury used in the bulbs ends up fused to the glass.
On burning up at the end of their life – I won’t put forward a position on that, other than I’ve never seen it happen and have not researched it. But it seems like it’s addressing a relatively minor concern – a lamp with an incandescent bulb can start a fire just from falling over and touching some fabric or carpet, but you won’t see that with a CFL because they don’t run so hot.
Perhaps Ian you can respond to how your article addresses these last two challenges.
August 16th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
As a (possibly) helpful corollory to the discussion of the “wrongness” of Govt regulation on what makes & models of light bulbs can be sold here, consider the following official stance on dodgy Chinese brands of toothpaste that have in the past been found for sale here:
http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/hot/alerts/ChineseToothpaste/DGStatement.asp
Is it right or wrong that Medsafe has a policy on the quality and chemical makeup of toothpaste, or should “the market” be the sole arbiter of what goes on our shelves?
August 16th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Anything that is easily broken that contains mercury should not be in homes.
This is a no brainer.
If there was no underlying polital advantage, these bulbs would never have even been considered.
What concerns me is what else is sneaking into our country under the current political correctness daze?
August 16th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
“Global warming denial” – there’s an emotive term looking for a perch to rest on…
Samv, I’m unsure if you’ve read the Investigate article, unlike those prior who shot first and looked silly later, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Wikipedia is not the authority on CFL bulbs. The outcome of the Maine study is a recommendation that these lights not be used in areas with children or pregnant women or carpets, and that if a light breaks over a carpet the recommended course of action is to throw away the carpet. Vacuuming might make you feel better, but it won’t eradicate hazardous levels of mercury.
That recommendation is now being picked up across the US. It is the latest scientific position, based on empirical testing, not computer modelling or the idle speculation of the world’s green blog commentators.
In terms of debating this, my dog is bigger than your dog. I’m quoting numerous scientific studies with references. You are simply dismissively waving your hand saying “trust me”. It’s up to you, or Virtualmark, or Swampy, or anyone else up for the challenge, to actually refute what I wrote in that article if you want to make a substantive point.
Otherwise it’s just hot air on your part. You criticise my reading of the studies? Fine, read the studies I cited and tell me where my article strays from their conclusions.
I forgot to add in regard to burning or exploding bulbs…Google Otago Daily Times and cfl bulbs, and read some of the experiences of readers with exploding and burning bulbs.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:40 am
My views reflect the need for a healthy dose of scepticism when reading your magazine due to its indulgence in conspiracy theory. it is perhaps fortunate and timely for you that this study has appeared as the previous reference was to an incident that owed more to urban legend than fact, this was also the character of some of the earlier postings on your blog.
As the reports from the US have only just been released I think we shall have to wait to see what due process will produce in corroboration or refutation of the claims made. As I noted in reply to your blog some weeks ago fluorescent lamp technology has existed in its various forms for decades with very little concern so the sudden rush of blood to the head in respect of CFLs is difficult to understand or justify.
Like another correspondent I do not believe it is normal for the bulbs to “burn up” at the end of their life. I have never experienced this with any type of CFL, and that includes the more commercial types such as are often found in exterior lamp fittings on buildings which are of somewhat different design however. Also I do not believe the regulatory authorities in NZ would allow any type of electrical device to be on the market in NZ that was at a high probability (as the word “normal” implies) of “burning up”. I suspect such comments are typified by certain inferior brands of these bulbs but certainly not the ones I have used. Similarly breakage is not a concern I am aware of as I have never experienced this but it is pretty obvious to me you should not hold the bulb by the glass tube when inserting or removing it as it could easily break this way.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
I am skeptical of claimed bulb life. Just had two of these die in the last week, only 2 – 3 years old, neither would be more than halfway to their alleged 6000 hours.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Swampy….this from a CBC TV report in Canada (quoted in the Investigate report):
“Ontario’s Electrical Safety Authority will issue a warning later this week to notify users of the unexpected way compact fluorescent light bulbs expire at the end of their long lifespan,” reported Canada’s CBC TV network last year.9
“Ted Olechna, a provincial code engineer with the Mississauga-based authority, said he plans to post the warning on its website. The bulbs come to an end by charring around the base, producing smoke and emitting a bad smell.
“That has scared some homeowners into calling fire departments, he said. But there have been no reports of fires resulting from fluorescent bulbs in Ontario, Olechna said.
“The upcoming advisory will explain that this is the normal way for these energy-efficient bulbs, which can last up to 10,000 hours, to die.”
As for your ‘skepticism’ regarding Investigate. The magazine has published nearly 2,000 articles. Our accuracy rate is far higher than any radio or TV news service, and probably better than most if not all of the other media in NZ.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I am just relieved that the greenies have all assured everybody that there is only a negligible, miniscule, non-harmful amount of non-releasable mercury in these CFL bulbs.
My conscience will now thankfully be clear when I dump my spent bulbs in the land-fill.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Ian,
Wikipedia might not be an authority on anything, but it does link to a lot of useful articles, many of which are from organisations which are generally regarded as authorities. Such as the World Health Organization. Let’s see what they say in their Elemental Mercury and Inorganic Mercury Compounds: Human Health Aspects document from 2003.
Several studies concur that average exposure to
elemental mercury at a concentration of 20 μg/m³ (20,000ng/m³) led to
slight, but not clinically observable, central nervous
system effects among exposed workers.
They mention that the figure is lower if there is a 24/7 exposure, but let’s assume for now that their room is not a prison cell. In other words, the peak level found by this Maine study is comparable to the level required to cause problems over a long-term exposure (admittedly, in adults).
But after three months, it’s down to a level of 2μg/m³. This is certainly still not nothing, but comparable to the amount you regularly inhale if you have an amalgam filling (Berglund, 1990). So I think that this claim that NZ will start becoming a “dumbed down” nation on the back of these results is a bit far-fetched.
Note that fish sold for consumption may have up to 1mg/kg mercury (see FSA website). I don’t see any comparison of this danger in your article. It’s an even greater danger, too – the mercury in fish having a large organic component (20% according to the WHO statement). Most of the studies I came across in this brief foray have had to control fish consumption in subjects to get meaningful results, implying that eating fish is of comparable concern.
Of course if the 300ng/m³ figure wasn’t just plucked out of the air, as one of your interviewees challenges you to show, then there may be a real concern. LED-based lightbulbs are much more efficient than fluorescents, and do not have these associated risks – hopefully we’ll see this intervention help bring this technology to the commodity market, as CFLs at $3 each basically are now.