2008-12-02 - Banning inefficient lightbulbs: Crucial issues for the EU energy policy
European Member States are voting on 8 December 2008 to implement an EU ecodesign policy on domestic lamps [1]. Banning incandescent bulbs has become a motto in several parts of the world to save energy. This is good news. However, there is more to it.
The issue is about the alternatives that will be left on the market to replace the “dinosaur” filament lamps [2]. The timing and level of ambition of this policy will be key to influence market transformation, innovation and in the end EU ability to meet its 2020 goal on energy savings and CO2 reduction. The potential savings at stake is equivalent to as much as the whole household electricity consumption of Eastern Europe.
As the lighting sector is one of the most promising for quick energy saving and CO2 cuts, environmental NGOs are extremely worried about the fact that the level of ambition of this policy could be very low, with a water-downed timing and leaving too many inefficient halogen bulbs on the market [3]. If the latest draft - heavily inspired by industry - is voted, 3/4 of the potential savings would be lost and innovation for more efficient lighting would be severely slowed down.
Environmental NGOs agree to recognise that an immediate and complete switch-over to Compact Fluorescent Lamps may not be appropriate (to take into account some consumer concerns), and support the option of allowing for a smoother 5-year transition and keeping the most advanced halogens on the market. This option would already mean loosing 40% of the potential compared to a CFL-only option.
Unfortunately, there is not even a majority at the moment among Member States to support this option. If the vote on 8 December was to follow the European Commission’s latest draft, climate change and energy security benefits of banning inefficient bulbs would be seriously endangered. Standard halogens would just replace the old fashioned lightbulbs for a long time.
Usual arguments behind this situation are concerns about replacement lamp availability and quality [4], exaggerated claims by industry about job losses [5], worries about higher costs for consumers [6] and pressure from groups of people suffering from light sensitivity [7].
We believe some of these concerns may be grounded, but they can be solved. They do not represent a good enough reason to jeopardise a crucial policy in the battle against global warming. Climate change threatens to bring much higher economic, social and health impacts on people’s livelihoods.
NOTES:
[1] The EU policy proposal on domestic lighting was prepared by the European Commission in the context of the Ecodesign of Energy-Using Products Directive, which provides the framework for setting minimum energy performance requirements for a huge range of products. Introduction to this policy: http://www.ecostandard.org/downloads_a/eup_introduction_2-p_03-11-08.pdf
[2] Incandescent lightbulbs are the traditional short-lived bulbs with filament, one of the least energy efficient way of producing light. Such bulb is cheap to buy, but expensive on the electricity bill and indirectly responsible of a lot of CO2 emissions. Alternatives to incandescent bulbs are:
– halogen lamps: the energy performance of standard halogens is close to incandescence, relatively low. Some slightly more efficient halogens now come in classic bulb shapes for usual lamp sockets, marketed as replacement for incandescent bulbs. Some other more advanced halogen technologies also exist with a 50% improvement in energy efficiency compared to incandescent (but still not as efficient as CFLs).
– compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs): 75% more energy efficient than incandescent and long–lasting. CFLs are more expensive to buy but slashes the electricity bill. Pay-back time is quick and consumers save money. Disadvantages: these lamps may take a few time to warm up, contain hazardous mercury (so they need to be properly recycled) and may emit electromagnetic fields.
– light emitting diodes (LEDs). This very efficient technology is already used for several applications like traffic signals. Lightbulbs made of LEDs cannot compete yet with the strongest lamps for high illumination, but technological improvement is foreseen and these lamps do not contain hazardous substances.
[3] All along the policy process before the vote, the European Commission has suggested several possible timelines and levels of ambition for this policy.
- In the latest document available, Commission suggests a long and complicated timing made of 6 stages. At first incandescent bulbs would disappear from the shelves in four progressive steps from 2009 to 2012. The latest stage in 2016 would then raise the minimum requirements to the full level of ambition of the measure, so that some other types of bulbs are banned. This timeline has been watered down compared to previous proposals, i.e. the last stage was initially supposed to take place in 2013 at the latest.
- The European Commission has also presented several possible options for the final level of ambition, i.e. which alternative lamps would be left on the market at the last stage:
Ø Option 1 would set the limit at the level of CFLs (most energy efficient lamps). The energy savings would be maximised: 86 TWh of electricity saved per year in the EU by 2020, equivalent to the overall consumption of residential electricity in all Eastern Europe.
Ø Option 2.a would also tolerate advanced efficient halogen bulbs, appearing today on the market (but still not as efficient as CFLs). Energy savings would drop to 51 TWh per year by 2020, equivalent to the residential sector consumption in Sweden and Denmark.
Ø Option 2.b would also allow less efficient products for specific halogen luminaires. Energy savings drop to 39 TWh per year by 2020, equivalent to the residential consumption of Belgium and Portugal.
Ø Option 2.c would allow all kinds of halogen alternatives for transparent bulbs, with energy performance far below CFLs. The savings drop to 33 TWh per year by 2020.
Ø Option 3 allows all types of halogen lamps for all types of applications. It means this policy is just about replacing incandescent bulbs by standard halogens. Savings drop to 22 TWh of electricity per year by 2020, only a quarter of the potential in option 1.
The European Commission, following the assessment of environmental, health, economic and social impacts, considers option 2.b to strike the appropriate balance between the needed energy savings and minimising other potential negative impacts.
[4] Lamp manufacturers often claim that it is impossible to supply Europe with quality alternative lamps if the level of ambition on energy efficiency is high. The Commission has looked at the evidence to support these claims, and stated that global production capacity for quality lamps should not be a constraint for an ambitious policy. As well as CFLs, a range of new innovative halogens already meet the level in option 2.a. In a 5 years’ time, they could become widespread and affordable if the ambition of the legislation provides a good enough incentive.
[5] Lamp manufacturers claim ambitious measures would lead to 10,000 job losses in the EU. The European Commission estimates that the figure for job losses is considerably overestimated. In reality, at most 2 to 3,000 jobs could be at stake all over Europe. The European factories that are affected could utilise existing workforce and be converted to produce the new advanced halogens which would be allowed under options 2.a and 2.b.
[6] In an energy efficient economy, the model of cheap and inefficient products must become obsolete. An energy efficient lamp might cost more than a simple incandescent or standard halogen bulb, but the pay-back time is short through electricity savings. So it is a benefit for all consumers. Moreover, the existing so-called “anti-dumping duties” on compact fluorescent lamps have been removed at EU level, making them cheaper. Consumers will also continue to have a large amount of choice (CFLs, best performing halogens and coming LEDs).
[7] Regarding mercury in CFLs, collection systems and recycling rates need to be improved, in order to reduce exposure. Information and awareness raising campaigns are still very needed, as a well as improved information on the lamp packaging. Environmental NGOs are also involved in promoting a limit on mercury per bulb under the European RoHS European Directive (restriction of hazardous substances).
UV and electromagnetic field radiations from CFLs can be diminished through mandatory limits, second envelope and embedded shields. People suffering from skin diseases or other illnesses which are linked to light sensitivity could be given appropriate alternative lamps through medical certificates.
Download related file:
