CIBSE Energy Performance Group - Think Tank
Green Paper: August 07(1)
Should we ban incandescent light bulbs?
Introduction
The Think Tank is a multi-disciplinary group established by the Chartered Institute of Building Services
Engineers’ Energy Performance Group to examine the causes of CO2 emissions from buildings in use
in the UK and to investigate and promote ways of reducing these emissions radically.
The findings of these investigations are set out in a series of Green Papers, offered for consideration
to the regulators, legislator’s, policy makers, trade associations, professional bodies and other
influential bodies. This is the first such paper.
Many governments in the developed world have realised that one easy way to significantly reduce
consumption and CO2 emissions, is to ban the sale of the range of highly inefficient incandescent light
bulb, particularly the General Lighting Service (GLS) bulb which dominates the domestic market.
Launching ‘Light’s Labour’s Lost: Policies for Energy–efficient Lighting’ in June 2006, Claude Mandil,
the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA) said “Without rapid action, the amount
of energy used for lighting will be 80% higher in 2030 than today; however, if we simply make better
use of today’s efficient lighting technologies and techniques, global lighting energy demand need be
no greater at that time”.
This Green Paper outlines the issues concerning the current use of GLS bulbs and their alternative
replacements. It sets out a clear proposal for action that could have a rapid impact both nationally and
globally.
The proposal
This Green Paper proposes that the UK Government:
1.
Outlaw the sale of traditional 40 Watt, 60 W and 100 W GLS bulbs in a stepped manner to this
timetable:
Lamp Category
Step
Period from now
100W
60W
40W
1
2
3
2 years
3 years
4 years
< 40W and others
4
Reviewed after 4years
Through its membership of the EU, it should also support a wider ban in all member states and
beyond. This will increase the market for low energy lighting, and encourage the lighting industry to
accelerate development and marketing of a variety of environmentally friendly, low energy lamps (e.g.
Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL), Light Emitting Diodes (LED) and Energy Saving Halogen) and
fittings that achieve or improve upon the beneficial qualities of GLS bulbs in respect of colour, start-up
times, dimmable control, light distribution, power quality, and resistance to over-voltage,
Should we ban Incandescent Light Bulbs?
Energy Performance Think Tank Green Paper No. 1
Page 1 of 4
2.
Implements measure/initiatives to encourage consumers to take the steps necessary to
ensure that CFLs find their way back to the manufacturer for safe recycling and disposal under the
WEEE recycling scheme and that they do not end up in landfill sites or worse simply discarded.
3.
Implements a public awareness program to ensure that all consumers understand the
implications of the banning of GLS bulbs and the use, benefits and limits of the alternative lamps,
including all necessary support to the elderly and disadvantaged.
Reflector lamps and special application lamps such as refrigerators and ovens are not covered
in this initial proposal.
The impact of change
Artificial lighting has a major impact on the global environment, directly through the energy it uses and
the associated pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions, and indirectly with the pollution and waste
generated during manufacturing, distribution installation, and disposal.
The phasing out of the traditional 40 Watt, 60 W and 100 W GLS bulbs and replacement with currently
available low energy alternatives will significantly reduce the impact of artificial lighting world wide, as
setout and explained below:
A significant reduction in energy consumption and CO2 emissions
The IEA publication mentioned in the Introduction states that lighting uses approximately 20% of the
world's electricity, and is responsible for 1 900 million tons (Mt) of CO2 emissions per year. One reason
why lighting is such a heavy consumer is that so much is provided by incandescent type light bulbs
which are typically less than 3% efficient; producing far more heat than useful light.
Statistics vary but generally indicate that if all domestic GLS bulbs in Europe were to be replaced in
the main by Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs), which are typically five times more energy-efficient
and the balance, where CFLs are not suitable replacements, by Energy Saving Halogen lamps which
are approximately twice as efficient as traditional GLS bulb it would give rise to an annual saving of
63,000 GWh of electricity and a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 23 million tonnes .
UK manufacturers’ data suggests that standard 40W, 60W and 100W GLS bulbs accounted for an
86% share of the domestic market in 2005. Replacing these would save some eight billion kWh per
[1]
year, or some 4.2 million tonnes of CO2 emissions
Embodied energy
CFLs have been criticized as having a higher embodied energy than GLS bulbs with figures of
between five and ten times higher being suggested; however no manufacturer or government to this
date has published such information, making it impossible to make a direct comparison.
It is sufficient to say, however, that the embodied energy of both the GLS bulb and the CFL is
insignificant compared to the energy consumed during their operational life, and as such the whole life
energy consumption [2] for each of the two types of bulbs, if it could be reasonably measured, would
tend to be in the same proportion as that for their operational consumption i.e. the GLS bulb would
typically consume five times more energy than an equivalent CFL
Should we ban Incandescent Light Bulbs?
Energy Performance Think Tank Green Paper No. 1
Page 2 of 4
A net reduction in landfill waste and improved management in the recovery of
materials:
Figures from a 1994 waste survey (adjusted for the small increase in CFLs now used), reveal that the
UK has to dispose of about 275 million GLS bulbs (220 million from domestic use) per year in land fill
sites, which equates to approximately 8250 tonnes per year (6020 t of glass + 1860 t of metal + 370 t
of other materials). If all the 40 to 100W range of GLS bulbs were replaced by CFLs it would reduce
this waste to less than a 3100 tonnes per year, much of which would be recycled under new EU
regulations. The primary reason for this reduction is that whilst CFLs contain some two to three times
more material, by weight, than a GLS bulb the life expectancy of the CFL is in the order of 10 times
that of the GLS?
The overall reduction in waste becomes even greater if the waste from upstream losses from
manufacturing; packaging and distribution are taken into consideration.
Essential use of mercury:
The use of CFLs as a low energy alternative to GLS bulbs has caused concern in some quarters
because of the essential use of mercury (2 to 5mg per lamp) in their manufacture. Mercury is a toxic
material that can pollute water courses and enter the food chain if it becomes uncontrolled waste.
There is a counter argument to this however, which is that power stations (primarily coal fired)
emit mercury to the atmosphere as a by product of generating electricity and that as a consequence of
this the use of high energy GLS bulbs produces more mercury that would be produced by equivalent
CFLs. Figures vary, but life-cycle analysis has found that GLS bulbs currently contribute between two
and three times more mercury to the environment than CFLs do.
Most acknowledge however, that the issue of mercury is likely to be more significant as electricity
generation becomes cleaner and CFLs become more widespread. It is essential therefore, that
appropriate measures are put in place to ensure that the waste mercury from CFLs is managed
effectively by those who are best placed to do so. In the European Union, CFL lamps are one of many
products subject to the WEEE recycling scheme. The retail price includes an amount to pay for
recycling, and manufacturers and importers have an obligation to collect and recycle CFLs safely.
One concern the Think Tank has however in regards to the safe handling and recycling of the
alternative CFLs is that the consumer is a potential weak link in the chain between manufacture, use
and disposal. It is the view of the Think Tank that appropriate measure/initiatives need to be put in
place to ensure that CFLs are returned to the manufacturer at the end of their operational life and that
they do not end up in landfill sites or worse simply discarded.
Cost savings benefits to the consumer:
With domestic electricity tariffs currently at 10p per kWh, the average saving in the cost of electricity
for replacing a 40W bulb with a low energy CFL would be in the order of £26 over the life of the CFL (10000
hours) or £64.00 for replacing a 100W GLS bulb.. Nationally the saving in electricity bills would be in the
order of £1.4bn and CO2 emissions reduced by 6 Megatons annually from saving 18,000 GWh.
Across Europe this would equate to an annual saving of 7 billion euros for consumers.
A significant increase in life expectancy:
The Government's Market Transformation Unit (MTU) tested several leading brands of GLS bulbs
(including retailers' own-brands) and found a typical life span of 700 to 1200 hours. Bulbs that claimed
to last more than 1,000 hours had a typical 1,150 hour life, while the others rarely lasted for more than
Should we ban Incandescent Light Bulbs?
Energy Performance Think Tank Green Paper No. 1
Page 3 of 4
900 hours, with some brands having an average life as low as 600 hours. In parallel tests, modern
CFLs lasted between 8,000 and 15,000 hours.
The benefits that arise from the changeover to lamps that last on average more than 10 times longer
than traditional GLS bulbs is reflected in the significant reduction in energy consumption, CO2
emissions, waste disposal and take up of natural resources, described in brief above. Longer life
lamps also provide a direct benefit to the consumer and in particular the elderly and handicapped
where lamp failure often causes anxiety and stress.
Why the need for legislation?
Despite increased public awareness of the problems of climate change, voluntary displacement of
incandescent lamps by more efficient, low energy alternatives is not happening fast enough, with the
market share of CFLs in the domestic sector increasing from 3% in 1996 to a present value of around
10%. Regulation to remove inefficient lamps from the shelves will help to bring about the necessary
changes in life style and encourage manufacturers to accelerate development, production and
promotion of more energy efficient alternatives.
Challenges and future steps
The development of low energy alternatives to the tradition GLS bulb has come a long way. Early
problems have in the main been resolved and their development now means that there are sufficient
types of low energy alternatives in the market place to render the proposed range of GLS bulbs
obsolete.
However, in order to allow the market to respond to continuing consumer needs the Think Tank
proposes limiting the range of Incandescent lamps to be withdrawn initially to those that represent the
largest share of the market and which can be readily replaced by current lower-energy technologies.
The first step would be to withdraw the highest energy 100W GLS bulbs within two years, the 60 W in
the year three and the 40 W the year four. The phase-out would allow manufactures to make changes
in production, suppliers to wind down existing stocks, and Government to give notice, advice and
where necessary assistance to consumers.
As the phase-out progresses, it will be necessary to review the advances in lighting technologies and
to set standards for extending the programme to other types of inefficient incandescent lamps i.e.
reflector lamps and special application lamps such as refrigerators and ovens.
[1]
Estimate based on the UK emissions conversion factor of I kWh = 0.52 KgCO2*).
Whole life energy consumption means the electrical energy consumed by the lamp during use + the
embodied energy consumed by raw material extraction, lamp manufacture, packaging and
transportation.
[2]
* Source: DEFRA 2007 - Guidelines to Defra's GHG conversion factors for company reporting,
Annexes updated June 2007
Should we ban Incandescent Light Bulbs?
Energy Performance Think Tank Green Paper No. 1
Page 4 of 4