Dr Peter Thornes, Dublin, Ireland The Administration of Energy and Communication Networks The Way Forward Not Dealing with Energy and Emission Problems: Visionary politics looks at what is possible, and how to get there. Visionary politics starts at the top and moves down. Acceptance politics starts at the bottom and stays there. Visionary politicians believe in possibilities and believe that others can see possibilities too. Acceptance politicians can't see the big picture and don't expect others can either. When a politician says "Great idea, but we have no money for it" that is acceptance politics. When a politician says "We should use toll charges to finance road maintenance", that is acceptance politics. This brings us to an understanding of essence. The concept of essence involves a belief in the beauty of the world. Essence applies to politics just as it applies to light bulbs. In politics, public and private ownership are developed according to very different criteria. Public services never compete, Private for-profit services must compete, Essence politics ignores the traditional ideological divide. A topical example is the question of what to do about greenhouse gas emissions. Using top down politics, major change before minor change, Properly organized electricity development will be seen to have a key role not only for business and residential emissions, but also in the lowering of emissions related to transport and buildings, and the essence concept will be seen in the whole chain of electricity production, distribution and consumption. A respect for people's opinions does not mean having no ideology. Sometimes you do not have to talk to people to realize what they want. Better communication with the public also arises out of clarity regarding public and private ownership in society, and how each is run effectively, as will be exemplified with electricity distribution. Private entities reach efficiency by competition, they find out what people want on the marketplace. What does that mean? Ironically, private entities are much better at this. Is this possible with public entities? There are plenty of communication channels nowadays. This is not just about public scrutiny: All part of what could - should - be new, open, and transparent politics. La Quatrième: The Fourth Transformation of Europe For those not familiar with the European Union and how it is governed: The Commission is the government, commissioners are the ministers. The heads of government of member nations agree on who is to be the Head (President) of the Commission. The government heads also submit who they want to be the commissioner from their respective states, currently one from each state (an issue frequently debated). The Commission's power derives from the fact that it not only has the sole right to make proposals that might be turned into law, but also executes the laws, making sure they are put into action throughout the EU. So the Commission puts proposals to the European Parliament and to the relevant ministers of all the countries for their comments and agreement, then the Commission sees to it that any agreed decision gets followed through in all the member states. As is obvious in the Lisbon Agreement, the latest proposal in EU structure and governance, there is never any real debate about the EU can and should be governed, nothing really changes from one agreement to another. An overall perspective: There are clear advantages for any group of neighbouring countries to cooperate in matters of trade, communication, defence, transport and other cross-border issues. The EU is a poor structure from several aspects, which will be described together with alternatives. To begin with, it not only unnecessarily goes beyond dealing with cross-border issues, it slows down and stifles local projects in the "matching funds" scenario where a country might pay towards the EU budget and then have to claw back the funds to enable local decisions to be executed. The EU is also undemocratically governed. The symbolism of the EU including flag, currency and overseas relations is obviously looking towards the United States (though ironically the USA as shown by recent automobile, energy and environment policies is now copying the regulatory bureaucracy of the EU). The EU today is a bloated expensive mess: ever expanding, poorly structured. A new, more focused, limited and democratic EU should therefore be developed. Inefficiently and expensively run as a regulatory bureaucracy, this EU is its own worst enemy, regardless of what member states want out of it. The European Parliament has too many members sifting through too many proposals. MEPs often say how they simply sit and click-vote through reams of proposals. The first thing to do relates to the organizational side, what can be done in a defined system to make it more democratically workable. The second thing is to cut down the number of members. The third thing is a Parliament with a more focused relevant remit. In turn, greater local decision making means that it doesn't matter that member states have fewer MEPs, with resultant bigger constituencies for each MEP. The End of the European Commission In considering the advantage of a structure like the European Commission, How did it come to this? Question to European MEPs: Normally in Western democratic tradition, it is of course the other way round: Even with a Platonian ideology of wise rule by an elite, In a new dynamic Europe, Let's have a look at the United States model. Actually, national sovereignity guarantees can be maintained precisely because the European Union already is like the United States. Democracy by Population = The House of Representatives = The European Parliament In a new relationship between the European Parliament and Council of Ministers, A European Government based on the European Parliament would not only be more democratic, "We don't want a lot of German or French ministers!", We now have new effective dynamic rule, a fourth transformation to a "United Europe", after the ECSC, the EEC, and the EU. What if the need is felt to more easily represent national governments in day to day involvement? National governments each appoint 2 senators, to act as their proxies. Notice the difference of appointing senators and commissioners: The new simple clarity: What about the Head of the European Government? A European President, elected by popular vote, with whatever executive or symbolic power, might seem a good idea to make citizens throughout Europe feel more part of a European identity. Turning to the Prime Minister scenario, a Conservative or Socialist bloc in the European Parliament might well have compromise leaders, or leaders on merit, also from smaller countries, who could become Head of Government. "I don't want to be governed by a Socialist (/Conservative/) Europe!" is the next fear There is also another factor. In a new Europe, In a new Europe, Greece does not pay in 3 billion to get 8 billion back. In other words, inefficient pay-in-and-claw-back finishes. The new dynamic Europe is focused on 1. What is relevant to Europe as a whole, 2. What is relevant to develop new and struggling member states, New Subsidiarity: Today, for many such decisions, Tomorrow, whether in net paying or net receiving member states, So if, say, today's Common Agricultural Policy was wound down, The Happy Family Once upon a time there was a family treaty-ing themselves to a visit in Lisbon. Kids, we'll finish this story tomorrow, and remember, in the EU yes means yes and no means yes as well! [Explanatory note for those not familiar with the EU: The Administration of Energy and Communication Networks Properly organized distribution is important to ensure energy and communication at low prices for both industry and households. There are worldwide many service providers in their own networks, the only price control being through regulators making pronouncements from time to time. The idea is to organize complete state (and federal USA, EU, Canadian, Australian etc) coverage with direct and fair competition that lowers prices for consumers. First a general run through, later a closer look at the application to electricity distribution. Distribution competition: Distribution monopoly: The distribution should therefore be under public ownership. State civil servants running public networks may not seem an attractive option. What we now get is state/national (and federal) coverage at unduplicated low cost, with fair and direct competition between private service providers within the public distribution that is provided to consumers. The importance is the price transparency along with the direct competition: An infrastructural revolution: For more on electricity related administration, see the climate change section, and the later section on electricity distribution Effective use of resources: The expensive waste of Digital Terrestrial TV In many countries, relatively few households are not connected to cable/satellite reception, and most households have fixed line telephone connection capability. This is also about effective resource management: It was a lack of frequencies that forced mobile telephony into using the microwaves of today, with poor reach, expensive distribution and health hazards. Now that analogue TV broadcasts finish, safer frequencies of good reach and cheaper distribution are freed up that can give a new era of mobile communication. If DTT licences are nonetheless awarded, they should at least have relatively short time limits and/or be liberally framed, allowing licence holders to use interactive 2-way and perhaps internet communication alongside regular TV transmission in the frequencies, as and when they find such additional use attractive and indeed commercially necessary. We live in a time of increasing awareness about climate change. Notes to the text: Whatever one's attitude to greenhouse gas emissions, the point is that they can simply and effectively be lowered just by changes in electricity and transport (4/5 of emissions), changes advantageous in themselves, regardless of the emission reduction bonus that they also bring. The issues are emission reduction and future energy supply. Given the uncertainty of the effects of emission reduction on global temperature - and given the expense of emission reduction - the key is to engage in activites which Sufficient first phase 2020/2030 emission reduction, for 2020 typically quoted at 15-20% reduction, is achieved by acting on electricity generation (coal, gas) andtransport (mainly automobiles) alone, since these 2 sectors account for nearly 80% of fuel combustion emissions, and fuel combustion in turn accounted for 94% of CO2 emissions in 2007 (EPA data). The focus on electricity and transport gives several advantages: 1. Local environmental benefit from less pollution of sulphur and all else that's in the emissions, regardless of the less certain or immediate global benefit from CO2 reduction. 2. Electricity supply alternatives which together with improved grid distributiongives better competition and keeps down electricity bills for consumers. 3. Transport alternatives (using electricity, hydrogen and other energy sources), which give variety of choice and competition advantages for consumers, additionallyreducing the dependency on oil imports. 4. No trade problems: Unlike Cap and Trade, which involves cement, steel and other industries having to face imports from unregulated countries, the here suggested electricity and transport changes are not just more limited, but also largely local. Funding and Impact Compare with In 2020 (and again 2030), from then available evidence, either Energy Efficiency Regulation is Unnecessary and Wrong: 1. There is no energy supply shortage, certainly not for electricity generation - and oil imports are not used for it. 2. If there was an energy shortage, the price rise of that energy would anywayreduce its consumption - and lead to increased purchases of energy efficient products, no need for any political intervention to ensure it. 2. Not all energy use involves emissions: Product bans are unfair on those who use emission-free energy. 3. Consumers pay for energy use, and in the absence of any energy supply shortage should be free to use energy as they wish. 4. Consumers can make up their own minds as to the advantages of efficient products versus less efficient ones. Also, there may not be any savings, For a full rundown of how efficiency regulation affects a broad range of products, see the relevant section. New clear electricity policies are put in place, as are transport policies, that themselves involve electrification. A. ELECTRICITY 1. Generation There are 2 ways of reducing generated emissions: From across the nation, administrators of coal and gas fuelled electricity generatingcompanies are brought together with emission reduction and utility energy experts under talks chaired by Obama administration representatives. As shown by the European carbon capture and storage projects, both from scratch (Schwarze Pumpe, Germany) and retrofit (Lacq, France), the emission processing and storage also takes care of the more traditional worries of coal/gas/oil emissions and what they contain, although it is not the primary aim of those projects. Any decommissioning of coal power stations means looking at alternative ways to supply peak demand electricity. 2. Distribution The United States does not have a national grid, rather a series of regional and local systems, with three interconnections (Western, Eastern, and Texas). The system is generally antiquated, needing both more capacity in the grids and better connections between them. Administrative efficiency in communication and energy networks is further dealt with above In practice, and following American tradition that limits public grid ownership, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas - ERCOT - system comes closest to what should be aimed for on a more national level,with separation of the ownership of generation and transmission, clearer regulation and larger areas under single operational control. There are 2 main reasons for grid capacity, interconnection and operational changes: • The overall improvement in service reliability, choice, and cost, with competing suppliers using smart grids that also have control functions at the consumer end, with new smart meters that can switch between suppliers (and not just "tell you how many lights you have switched on"). More below • The specific improvement needed if renewable but intermittent energy (like solar or wind) is to feed the system. Such power generation is location dependent and needs wide inter-state dispersal both to be profitable and to bring down emission levels on a national scale. Again, the Obama administration and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should engage in wide ranging consultative talks with grid owners, operators, and other interested parties, before arriving at a regulatory path designed to meet the changes required, although this time federal rules will need some form of direct federal oversight given the inter-state nature of the changes required. B. TRANSPORT This largely mirrors what was said under Electricity Generation above, however emission taxation should here be used instead of either emission or fuel efficiency regulation. As for rail emissions, trains are increasingly electrified and, especially with a low emitting electricty source, they are seen as a low emission form of transport, compared to cars or planes (more). Aviation emissions have received a lot of attention, partly because of greatly increased flights in recent years, but also from the particular problems of their CO2 release at high altitude, said to worsen their effect. More: BBC Q&A, Wiki Shipping is perhaps the forgotten culprit, mostly out of sight, out at sea... There are 2 ways of reducing generated emissions: Emission processing is not just theory, as shown by Georgia Tech research. Energy substitution with emission-free energy sources obviously also lowers overall transport emissions. The importance of the grid electricity solutions above are seen here too, in recharging electric cars for example, and electric vehicles including trains are at present the most advanced option regarding emission-free energy substitution. 2. Fuel efficiency or emission regulation is wrong The Obama administration has already been involved with auto-makers, notably in nationalising General Motors. As with electricity generation and distribution, there is a place for consultative talks and for politicians to encourage changes that here can both lower emissions and reduce oil dependence. However, there are clear differences in dealing with power stations andautomobiles. Automobiles should not be subject either to fuel efficiency or emission regulation. Apart from emissions, American oil imports are stated as a reason for fuel efficiency regulation: For further reasons against fuel efficiency regulation in relation to energy use and energy security, see the start of the energy supply section onwards, specificallyhere, with more in the car section. The desired goals of the increased production of cars that are fuel efficient and reduce oil dependence, and of the reduction of emissions to whatever level desired, can be achieved without sacrificing consumer freedom of choice. Taxation is not popular in the USA: As for governments, taxation is much more flexible and adaptable than bans, and can be lifted when no longer required (for example by installing retrofit car emission processing), without having affected production. Part 1: Why All Energy Efficiency Regulation is Wrong Summary: Efficiency regulation is not just unjustified in itself, it will lead to growing unease among the population denied from using popular inefficient products (regulation excluding impopular products is obviously not of savings value), at a time when increasing cooperation to achieve emission reduction is sought. The idea that "we are not banning products, only making them more efficient" does not hold: By definition, efficiency regulation means that some products will be excluded from the market, as the elimination of today's common light bulbs shows. Why energy efficiency regulation is wrong: 1. The energy supply is there, and if it wasn't, the resulting price rise would limit the energy use - and lead to increased purchases of energy efficient productsanyway, no need for any regulation promoting such products. 2. Energy supply and security problems relate to the finite energy sources of oil, coal, and gas, which happen to also be the main CO2 emitters, so their depletion and price rise just leads to their replacement with non-emitting nuclear or renewable energy which is welcomed anyway. 3. If energy efficiency succeeds in reducing energy usage, it reduces the cost of oil, coal and gas, which either 4. The failings of emission trading proposals and of allowance handouts, has increased the pressure to achieve emission reduction via efficiency regulation instead. 5. Efficiency regulation means product bans for consumption - not product safety- reasons. 6. For consumers, energy efficiency is certainly an advantage that they should consider when buying products, but the consumers can and should weigh that up against the advantages (see below) that inefficient products always have too - or they wouldn't exist as choices on the market. 7. Consumers pay for the energy they use. Their demand for energy is no better or worse than their demand for a loaf of bread or a nice shirt, given that the supply is there, and building a power station is therefore no better or worse than building another factory or shop. 8. Several reasons will be given why efficiency regulation does not give the energy and emission savings commonly suggested, including the simple reason, as shown by research, that consumers would not take care to save on what effectively becomes cheaper energy use. In turn, the argument that "Carbon emission reduction in electricity production and distribution is too slow and expensive for all concerned, we must also act on consumption, banning products that don't meet defined efficiency standards" doesn't hold up: 1. Because the lowering of emissions from electricity generation and distribution can be addressed in several ways, not all of which need take time, and some of which need organizational skills rather than money. Grid interconnections can relatively rapidly spread low emission electricity from a specific source. 2. Because there are numerous disadvantages to consumers of efficiency-definedbans. 3. Because energy and emission savings from such bans are not as great as assumed anyway. 4. Because -while it should not be needed- appropriate and temporary taxation on products that would otherwise be banned, not only raises funds for relevant environmental projects, it quickly limits and redirects consumption for the time required, with more adaptability regarding scope and application than bans. The Consumer Side of Energy Efficiency "We are not banning products, we are only imposing efficiency standards on them!" All products have advantages, otherwise noone would buy them and they would have no reason to exist. In fact inefficient products end up being particularly popular. Imagine if a politician drew the complete opposite conclusion! Ban proponents will say: It may sound positive to force manufacturers to make inefficient products more efficient. For any defined unmodified product, greater energy use means better performance. It sounds good to have an efficient product. As for washing machines and dishwashers, hot and powerful ones are inefficient in energy use. Any given computer or TV-set that is forced to use less energy suffers from worse response-time, worse memory use and retrieval, worse screen performance (including less screen back-lighting etc), only solved as said by expense-adding component changes - if they are possible that is, to meet the energy efficiency required. Construction and Appearance are affected A more efficient product requires a more complex construction (and/or uses more expensive components = next section!) or the product would be efficient already, since it is an advantage. Energy efficiency means sacrifices in for example cars that are forced to be smaller/lighter/flimsier for any given efficiency standard and price, and therefore less safe to travel in. Conversely, through the need for insulation to save energy by keeping heat in (or out), it makes buildings, refrigerators, computer servers larger, heavier and/or with less internal space and/or more expensive to construct with different components. Complexity takes over from simplicity: Price and Savings are affected All else being equal, greater energy efficiency means more expensive appliances, or they would be energy efficient already, since energy efficiency is an advantage. 1. Energy efficiency measures themselves increase cost to consumers. 2. It is sometimes suggested that if everyone has to buy efficient products, it will make them cheaper, on economy of scale. 3. Since inefficient types of a product (inefficient washing machine models etc) will no longer be made, spares may be harder to get, reparation more difficult or impossible, thereby forcing consumers into new purchases. 4. Related products are no longer made, so if you have an old lamp and fitting for current light bulbs -especially less usual kinds- then you don't just have to contend with buying new lights, you have to buy new lamps for them too. There is an irony watching green sustainability anti-global activists and global multinational corporate executives stand side-by-side with their political representatives that they have been lobbying so hard, all these people applauding product bans, welcoming the forced changes that ordinary consumers may not find quite so exciting. Lack of Actual Money, Energy or Emission Savings from Efficiency Regulation Lab testing of one product against another is one thing, reality is another. Lack of savings: Firstly because of product related factors (the light bulb ban is illustrative also of other electrical product bans: heat waste may be useful, the replacement product (CFLs) not save as much as stated, and there are all the other factors as listed fromhere onwards). Secondly because poor performance (see performance points above) may be made up for in longer usage time losing energy and money, or by upgrades to more expensive and more energy using appliances to give the same performance as before. Even if we assumed that the cheap-to-buy-but-expensive-to-use feature was the only one lost to consumers (not true of course, as seen above), it would itself be attractive, either for short-term or rare usage. More: Complex energy saving products actually require more energy, not only inconstruction but also in transport from the fewer manufacturing centra in which they are economical to make, and, being more complex, may (like "energy saving" lights) require recycling, with associated energy and emissions. It must be said that the likely longer lifespans of energy efficient products compensates, but again this eats into the savings figures that energy efficiency proponents like to proclaim. More: Think of what energy efficiency means: More: If energy efficiency does succeed at first in reducing energy usage, itreduces the cost of oil, coal and gas sources, which either More: The idea of energy efficiency lowering people's electricity bills does not necessarily hold anyway. The lack of competition in grids means that any reduced use means reduced sales for the supplying electricity company, which simplyraises the standing charge or the price per kWhour, to cover its costs, of which the purchase of fuel is only a small part, compared to plant and grid maintenance, wage bills, and so on: energy regulators are hardly going to deny such a legitimate request. Choice and Quality are affected 1. Less choice for the consumer when different products versions and their unique features are excluded - as is obvious from the sections above. 2. Because energy efficient products are harder to make, and because the cheap competition of inefficiently made products is now excluded, there may be fewer manufacturers left in competition. Light bulbs are the forerunners of other bans to come. Overall then, poorer markets with fewer more expensive products, a lack of competition and consumer choice but with product quality supposedly assured by inspectors. Meeting Consumer Demand The justification given for the limitation imposed on manufacturers is that free market conditions do not lead to enough purchases of energy efficient products.Information campaigns telling people of great savings they can make are considered insufficient: Green Technology Green Marketing There is not any energy supply problem in society that justifies regulation: 1. Renewable energy sources already exist, and are increasingly deployed (solar, wind, wave, tidal, hydro, geothermal, biomass). The idea of "saving society the cost of building another power station", does not reflect that it's actually about the paying consumer's demand for energy exactly like consumer demand for a loaf of bread or a nice shirt or a new car. Energy security needs to be considered in relation to any need to save energy. Given that politicians can secure control in their own jurisdictions, it's really about dependence on foreign sources of energy. Typically it involves questions of reliance on Middle East oil, or (for the EU) Russian gas. 1. This is of no great relevance in current electricity generation, which tends to utilize local (coal/gas) and renewable (hydropower, wind etc) and/or long-lasting (nuclear) sources: Canada and Australia alone supply half the world's uranium anyway, so there are no geopolitical import problems for nuclear use by western states. The strategic importance of reliance on foreign electricity generation in renewable electricity multinational supergrids does need to be considered. More: A supergrid constructed as an internet of electricity like that of communication, is less reliant on any one supplier or connection. 2. Dependence on finite fossil fuel (oil/coal/gas) from any given country or region can be overcome in several different ways Consumer price chocks from disruptions tend to be temporary, and if not, it is simply promoting the alternative renewable/non-emitting energy use that is anyway desired by energy efficiency supporting politicians. Regulation on Cars to reduce Oil Dependence Cars are the most obvious example of the supposed need for energy efficiency regulation to limit the dependence on oil (as gasolene/petrol/diesel). A further point (again seen with cars) is that human inventiveness increases as it's required, in the provision of alternative energy sources. [Note that if oil supply really was a worry, then oil/gasolene tax would be much better than energy efficiency regulation. The Emission Side of Energy Efficiency Energy efficiency regulation is said to bring down carbon emissions. Emissions and how to actually deal with them will shortly be covered more fully. Current US legislative proposals are illustrative. Efficiency regulation is not needed, and emissions can be dealt with better without it: In construction, efficiency regulation only makes sense if there's an energy shortage. As far as purchasers/occupiers are concerned, the advantage of an energy efficient building can be compared to advantages that less efficient buildings may have: Architects and builders should be free to construct any building they wish. Emission, rather than energy, control may then be put in place: But again, can relate to energy supply rather than construction obligations. Regarding overall emissions in society, electricity and transport should as said be prioritised in a first phase, and of course that means that electricity supply to buildings can have reduced emissions, and can be used for both heating and cooling interior climatization. With existing buildings and emissions (from heating), energy conversion schemes can of course be encouraged and possibly subsidized by governments, depending on the emission situation in that region. With carbon gas emitting industry like for example cement or steel, it's again in their own interest to have efficient production with low energy use, they don't need governments to tell them that. Regarding the lowering of emissions, current US and EU and IPCC Copenhagen plans are focused on circuitous cap and trade schemes. The section below will compare ways to achieve compliance in order to lower industrial emissions. Power stations are of course industries themselves and so have the same arguments as those just given. Stimulation of competition leads to efficiency in all areas of energy production, not just internal energy use, and makes energy efficiency legislation a needless tampering with executive choices: all the more so, since internal energy supply is here hardly going to be a problem. Given their importance, particular attention will be given to power station emission reduction in the next section, whether directly by carbon capture and storage schemes, or indirectly by energy source substitution, and how to achieve compliance by energy companies to implement the necessary changes. "Banning light bulbs saves X million tons of CO2" As it happens, light bulbs don't give out any gases. Power stations do. The lack of correlation between appliance use and emissions also -and significantly- means that emission- free energy users are unfairly stopped from buying the lighting that they obviously want to use. The overall savings are marginal anyway - see a listing of reasons. [ Update August 2009: The US "cash for clunkers" program As said earlier, fuel efficient cars effectively means cheaper energy which in turn means they will be used more (and may for example, reduce the use of public transport). As far as government is concerned, any oil shortage - for geopolitical or economic demand reasons - raises the gasolene price and - guess what - increases demand for fuel-efficient cars anyway, no need to legislate for it. Another reason is that - as research at Georgia Tech has shown (more below) - it is possible to process and filter emissions, also removing CO2 gas. Look at General Motors in the USA! Fuel efficiency is being imposed on General Motors and indeed all other auto makers, in proposed legislation. But should General Motors, like other industry, not be thinking about the planet too? Let's take it from the top! Efficiency regulation on cars is wrong: 1. In relation to performance (eg speed) and safety (size, lightness) that may be sacrificed in order to keep costs low in meeting required efficiency standards. More on consumer disadvantages above. 2. In relation to unwarranted oil supply and security concerns. That brings us to energy efficiency regulation to reduce emissions. First of all: Energy efficiency regulation is not the same as emission regulation. 1. Different types of energy, including variations of hydrocarbon fuel (such as petrol/gasolene or diesel, or biomass alcohol and gas, and sub-classes within them) release different amounts of carbon emissions, for a given amount of energy consumption. 2. In a similar way to applying "clean fuel" technology to power stations, including carbon capture and storage schemes, carbon removal can take place at various stages in using hydrocarbon fuel for cars. Carbon removal from car fuel is not just a theory: So is everything OK if emission regulation is set on cars, mirroring power station emission reduction schemes? No, it's still wrong. Why? Product taxation was mentioned as being better than bans for light bulbs. Still, it was not a preferred solution in that case. Why? Notice the difference with cars. Products are normally banned for being unsafe. Think of lead paint or poorly made fireworks. Now, cars do give out emissions: Taxation is a much better instrument to lower consumption - for all concerned. There are several advantages of car emission taxation over efficiency bans: 1. Consumers don't like taxation, but at least they can still buy the car they want. "In America noone likes taxation!" Part 2: Carbon Emission Policy Greenhouse gas emissions usually but not always contain carbon, the main gas concerned being CO2, carbon dioxide. For the sake of simplicity "carbon emissions" is taken as equivalent in this text. Well, do we really need to control greenhouse gas emissions? FOR: 1. Whether or not global warming would be taking place anyway, the current general consensus is that carbon emissions aggravate it and its effects, effects that have been seen to be increasing in recent years. 2. As an overall principle, if any man made ecological disturbances can practicallybe limited or contained, that is a desirable course of action. AGAINST: 1. Whether or not emissions contribute to global warming, and whether or not global warming effects are unwelcome, there are increasing complaints that emission reduction measures will have little effect anyway in lowering global temperature. 2. Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are naturally occurring gases in the atmosphere, to talk of "pollution" and "clean air" is a misnomer. If accepted that emission reduction should be attempted, while knowing that such attempts may be meaningless, the obvious path to take is to initiate reduction efforts with measures that bring their own benefits. If reduction is then (say in 2020 and 2030) still seen as worthwhile, more involved and specific carbon emission reduction can be implemented. A description will later be made of the benefit of only focusing on electricity and transport (80% of emissions) in first phase reduction, with the energy supply and distribution advantages (electricity) and electrification advantage (transport) that these bring anyway, along with lowering fossil fuel emissions which contain noxious substances quite apart from CO2. This is completely different from all-encompassing business-disrupting expensive trading in CO2 emissions, which dominates current American, European, Canadian, Australian and indeed world thinking, as seen in the Kyoto agreement, and as seen in the run-up to the Copenhagen Climate Change summit in December. Emissions - the Overall Picture In evaluating CO2 emission reduction measures, then of course everything causing such release - and failing to cause re-uptake - needs to be looked at, whether innature itself, including man's involvement in nature (land claim and agriculture), or from more directly man-made emissions. What will be seen to be important is not just to capture the carbon of carbon dioxide, but also to store it so that it doesn't get re-released. For more details about emissions, see the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) background documentation. In summary, fossil fuels (oil/coal/gas/peat) and agriculture are the 2 main causes of the increase in greenhouse gases. Agriculture itself of course contributes to greenhouse gas increases through consumption of fossil fuel, but also notably from The possibility of ocean capture and storage should not be forgotten: In the following, what is considered by far the most important cause of climate change will be focused on, namely fossil fuel based emissions. See The House of Representatives (final amended June 23 version) Bill: originalsummary. Emission-free grid electricity will play a major part in lowering future emissions, apart from powering home and industrial appliances: Later on this website therefore looks more closely at electricity policies. To sum up: The lowering of electricity related emissions, is basically split into 3 areas, The funding can in theory itself be relevant in lowering emissions, inasmuch that an electricity price rise to cover changeover cost reduces relevant demand. However, the effect of such demand-lowering sharp price rises on customers and in turn on company is obviously negative. How could taxation be used to reduce industrial emissions? You could have taxation at either end of the process: Fuel Tax Emission Tax Another point is that if emission taxation is supposed to induce companies to take emission reducing action, then that in turn depends on fuel price, which can vary greatly. In other words, an industry can be happy to carry the burden of emission tax, if the fuel price is low enough (and the emission reduction cost is high enough), conversely emission tax may be way excessive if fuel price rises sharply. A final reason against both emission and fuel tax relates to power stations. This comes back to the basic question: A great belief is put in Cap and Trade as a way to lower emissions, by politicians the world over (in the USA, the EU, individual states in them and in Canada, as well as Australia and other countries, also being a part of the current Kyoto agreement). Therefore the system will be looked at in some length here. But what is "Cap and Trade"? Cap and Trade involves a limit - a "cap" - on the amount of a substance (here carbon dioxide) that can be emitted. This cap gradually gets reduced, over say a 40 year period. Companies are issued emission permits, also called allowances, that give them the right to emit specific amounts of the substance up to the limit set by the cap. The permits/allowances are handed out or sold, usually by auction, by the issuing authority. Thereafter they can be traded. Those who find it more profitable to reduce emissions than to pay for allowances, can sell off any allowance held to those who still find emission reduction too expensive or impractical. The point of Cap and Trade is that as the Cap gets reduced and the fewer and fewer allowances left in circulation become more and more expensive, the pressure mounts on companies to reduce emissions. Comparison with Taxation Why companies actually don't have to reduce their emissions 1. Offsets An immediate problem with Cap and Trade as applied to Carbon emissions, is the variety of industry involved. Offsets effectively give an escape from Cap and Trade by "allowance equivalent" emission reduction. Investing in renewable energy is one offset possibility, and such investment of course reduces any support neeeded from public funding for such projects, but like all "tax break" investments should ideally be viable in themselves once they are up and running, or they risk future closure. Offsets paying for industries (in developing countries) to reduce emissions has led to criticism that firms can be releasing emissions in payback agreement. Tree Planting Offsets Problems: Replacement trees that are slow growing will take longer to absorb sufficient carbon dioxide. But replacing local tree varieties with fast growing ones - and indeed any planting activity - may have implications regarding ecosystems and natural habitats, also of the effect on any people living there. Saving existing forests is therefore better than planting new ones, yet current offsets are only for tree planting, not preservation. Let's look at other ways of not lowering emissions... 2. Manufacturing shifts to Unregulated Countries Also known as "Have it made in China instead". Emissions are a global problem and affect the earth wherever they come from. Variable country/continent carbon emission limits mean that industry can play the "global game". All good and fine, because the USA and Europe therefore do not surpass their own CO2 limits. More: Consumers are yet again hit, because while certainly cheap Chinese products are welcomed, they are denied quality goods from locally applied Western technology. 3. Manufacturing doesn't shift to Unregulated Countries Emissions if manufacturing is shifted... Emissions if it isn't. Fair Trade The Waxman-Markey Bill recognizes this problem, so that any domestic company that can show that unfair trading is taking place can qualify for cap and traderebates - understandable, but again weakening the Cap and Trade scheme itself. Creating markets in CO2 reduction The Surreal Market in Allowances A Real Market in CO2 Reduction To clarify the principle here: A real government contracted market in C02 reduction would therefore mirrorone in garbage collection: Compare that to what happens with Cap and Trade: Another way to broaden the scope of achieving CO2 reduction is to present it as achallenge with big prize money that could involve private benefactors. To encourage anyone to enter, the award, or part of the award, could be based on efficacy, in other words cost of technology compared to reduction achieved. Whatever the practicality of such schemes the point is to get Back to Basics: Cap and Trade problems have only been touched on so far. The task of deciding reasonable emission levels and how to reduce them with regard to the different industries involved, is of course a problem whatever the emission reduction scheme used. Initial distribution of allowances is by selling them off, typically with an auction, or by simply handing them out for free. The original Obama sponsored Waxman-Markey House Bill had nearly all allowances to be sold off at auction, which has since been whittled down to involve a lot of free hand-outs. However, auctions share the disadvantage of such taxes, those most able to payare not necessarily those most able -or willing- to make emission cuts. Initiating the Cap and Trade system with the free hand out of allowances, instead of auctions, is no less of a problem. Sector fairness: Competition fairness: Clearly Cap and Trade schemes don't exist without reason. Trading in carbon emissions has clear disadvantages: As fewer and fewer allowances circulate, the pressure to reduce emissions is unequal and unfair. Regarding coal power industry - the main and key industry involved here - the theory might be that state regulators would keep electricity prices down, forcing coal power companies to comply without raising their prices, or shut down: The Big American Mistake, following on from the European one, is to keep talking about artifical and meaningless cap and trade competition, when they could be talking about competition between emission-processing companies to reduce CO2 (see above), and, more specifically here, real and direct grid competitionbetween energy companies, unlike any grids seen today, and unlike any grids that are currently planned. There is also the problem for individual companies in engaging in allowance trading, as seen in the following section. Cap and Trade affecting Individual Companies Stability Whatever emission reduction measure that is imposed on a company, it is obviously going to be an additional expense and distraction from its normal business activity. Cap and Trade gives more problems in this regard than tax or regulation alternatives do. Why then is it said that Cap and Trade gives certainty as to what is required in the future? The fact that companies have to chase allowances at uncertain prices clearlydisrupts their normal business practice and planning, and any free allowances alleviating the problem now is only pushing that problem to the future. The Waxman-Markey proposal attempts to overcome the price uncertainty by including futures trading in allowances, to allow the forward fixing of prices and ease business planning. It's always easy to dismiss business criticism as being one of self-interest, and naturally businessmen -like everyone else- have their interests to defend. Cost The mentioned factors of the disruption of normal business practice and the price volatility of allowances, as well as their direct expense, all have implications for the cost of running a company, a cost that is passed on to the consumer. David Sokol again, in testimony at the House of Representatives Energy Committee 9 June 2009: "...Let me begin by observing that the cost impact of the allowance trading mechanism has been grossly understated for utilities that serve their customers with coal-fueled generation. The bill's supporters say the electricity sector is responsible for 40% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and will receive 35% of the free allowances, so the sector is only taking about a 10% haircut. That is not how the bill works. This is - as seen - hardly the first critical text on cap and trade, it is widely recognized as unworkable to lower carbon emissions, by commentators with widely different backgrounds, as any research will show. Why then do politicians love cap and trade so much, with its complex way of achieving so little? Notes to the text: There are worldwide proposals and decisions to ban ordinary light bulbs. A ban all the more strange with the environmental reasons given for it, since light bulbs don't emit gases - power stations might, and emissions can and should be dealt with directly as described. The overall and comparative energy savings from a ban will be seen to bemarginal anyway. There is furthermore no electricity supply shortage, and if there was, the price rise would in any case lead to increased purchases of energy efficient products - no need for politicians to interfere. Conversely, any energy savings from a light bulb ban is just a reflection of theirpopularity: Politicians think that everyone buys light bulbs just because they are cheap, and would be happy with the supposed savings of using fluorescent lights instead. Conversely, people don't avoid fluorescent "energy saving" lights just because they are more expensive. Similarly, if new LED lamps are good, no need to ban ordinary light bulbs: A ban on light bulbs simply makes no sense - for any reason. People spend half their lives under artificial lights. Some official energy efficiency sites, and information about light bulb bans: The EU: efficiency, ecodesign, details (pdf, scroll to bottom) Shining a Light on Politics and Light Bulbs Updated and revised 12 september 2009 Note, July 2009: The introduction below was originally written as a criticism of EU proceedings. Watching how bans are decided in the EU teaches you all you need to know about EU politics. Large European light manufacturers were originally against a ban because of Chinese competition in manufacturing CFL "energy saving" lights. Even with duties imposed, China's share of the EU market for the product was already about 72 percent in the 12 months to mid-2006 (source: EU Commission). But then, a special EU tariff lowering deal arrangement with the Chinese in 2008, meant the Chinese were allowed EU access with their lights and parts, conditional on cooperation with European manufacturers in terms of rebranding and assembly (for early reporting on the tariff lowering controversy, see IHT 2007 article, post tariff-lowering report by Bloomberg Dec 2008). Wouldn't it be good to wait for better quality CFLs or LEDs? Not at all. Firstly, The market push of CFLs can be seen directly in the ban specifications. What is not stated - and the legislators know full well - is that frosted lights are the most popular light type, without the glare of transparent lights for ceiling lamps. Therefore, on the basis of market factors, not efficiency factors, people arepushed to use CFLs. In a particularly shameful move, typical of how the EU operates, politicians and PR people have kept proclaiming how "lookalike halogens will be allowed": Secondly, Now, compare with keeping ordinary light bulbs: Back to the political parlour games: Then, when the Commission was deciding to put the proposal to the EU Parliament, the Industry, Research and Energy Committee - yes, that's right: the committee supposedly handling energy questions - had, and has, several known members with an awareness of the industrial background, and that committee was always going to be more critically demanding anyway, than an alternative committee containing ban activists. So the issue gets shunted off to the committee dealing with the environmentinstead, full of well meaning environmentalist support for a ban (it's an odd twist of life that sees die-hard lefty anti-global campaigners happily support the aspirations of global corporate manufacturing executives, knowingly or not!). Now, in the initial proceedings, one Environment Committee member actually (shock, horror!) thought it would be rather more democratic if Parliament, took a vote, since, as he said, that was part of normal parliamentary democracy. Apparently this held things up for a couple of meetings, until the good member was "leaned on" by EU debate organizing Comitology committee stalwarts and invited to [ Regarding the original push not to have a Parliament debate and vote, the reason given was that there was "a lot of other business to do" and that "light bulbs had been discussed enough already": A ban on light bulbs, as with other electrical products in current use, is strange in consumer law: Cars give out emissions. Electrical products do not. Old Technology - New Technology There's a lot of talk about old and new technology with lighting. The obvious counter is "if it ain't broke - don't fix it". First of all old technology means known technology means proven, reliable and, as just said, safe technology, for a product we spend half our lives using, sometimes within a few feet. Secondly, it's one thing to have a product fade a way from lack of consumer demand in face of a significant improvement as viewed by the people, as opposed to a ban put in place by politicians because of an improvement as they see it. Let's compare the light bulb with its cousin - the radio valve (tube). Does this ring a bell? Notice how the opposite is of course true too: A safe product that is not popular does not need to be banned, because so few are using it anyway. This gives us the beautiful (and typical) logic, that the more popular a product is, the more energy use it will cause, and the more politicians can wave their arms in their air and say how great they are for (supposedly) letting people save so much money, by banning a product that people obviously want to buy and use! Unsurprisingly, the EU is at the forefront of this logic. Light bulbs are overwhelmingly popular in the EU, as elsewhere. Speaking of the USA: Now, the European Commission has also relied on data from an organization called VITO. What spiel did the Brusselcrats then think up? The problem is, that this kind of data of course means that the supposed great savings aren't there, and, as outlined in Old Technology - New Technology above, that a ban is again unwarranted, this time because a conversion is taking place anyway. As the good Cambridge scientists put it: No, scientists, it isn't - whether the bulbs are popular or not - but try explaining that to anyone who commutes to Brussels. The assumption is that people only buy light bulbs because they are cheap. Nor do you avoid buying a CFL or anything else just because it is expensive: That said, many households already have at least 1 CFL (the UK is typical, 1/2 of households there and in most countries have at least 1 CFL and the average UK and European household has around 2 CFLs and 20 light bulbs, Commission research). Light bulbs have many attractive features, apart from being cheap. A warm bright light quality: Ordinary light bulbs also have a pleasing simple appearance, are versatile with dimmers and sensors, are quick to come on in the cold, and are easy to make bright, including in small sizes. Many do not understand this, while others choose to ignore it. The US Government -and at least some European- building construction efficiency directives have extensive information on the heating effect of ordinary incandescent light bulbs, in the USA often to see the relevance of how much can be saved, in states where air conditioning cooling is extensively used in offices etc. Notably, the directives also go into the relevance of not replacing such lighting in some states and situations. Clearly, the left hand knoweth what the right hand ignores: In fairness, to people in general the idea might seem absurd that little light bulbs can lower your heating bills. For example: Note that, ironically, the energy efficiency drive that also seeks to insulate people's homes better, therefore also improves the heat benefit of their light bulbs - if they are allowed to keep them. Yet another point that somehow does not get mentioned. "To Switch or Not to Switch: A Critical Analysis of Canada's Ban on Incandescent Light Bulbs" But isn't Canada banning light bulbs? However: You do not have to be a scientist to understand this or any other paper on the topic. Look at your light bulb again... A half-covered light bulb near the ceiling may not seem like much. 1. Heat rises. 2. 20 x 100Watt = 2kW So: The small benefit from one or two bulbs should be seen in terms of their low electricity use and cost, of course cutting down on heating bills rather than heating rooms on their own. Air conditioning: As mentioned, if air conditioning is used to cool a room, then light bulbs will work against it, but in Europe (as in any non-tropical area) when it is dark and the lights come on, the need for cooling is rare compared to the need for heating. Overall: A Ban on the Bright 100W+ Bulbs is especially wrong In the EU, USA, and elsewhere, higher wattage light bulbs have been specially targeted for an early phase-out. The reason is the greater energy difference in replacement with (supposedly) equivalent CFLs, compared with replacing lower wattage bulbs. Ironically, a ban on such 100W+ light bulbs is particularly wrong: Fluorescent "energy saving" lights are harder to make bright, particularly in small sizes, LED lamps show promise: But, again, achieving brightness is not only difficultfor household replacement lights, beyond 40 to 60W ordinary light bulb equivalence: The "Switch all your lights and save lots of money!" slogans shows a lack of understanding of different lights and their uses. All lights have specific, different advantages. That is why they are on the market. Ordinary incandescent light bulbs, Halogens, LEDs, light emitting diodes, Again, they look different from the ordinary light bulbs: LEDs have a complex multimodular structure, often with pure colour light combinations to produce white light. So LEDs have 4 main problems as household light replacements, particularly in ceiling lamps: Currently there are some 40 Watt equivalent lights at 50 US dollars from different suppliers, and a 60 Watt equivalent light for 120 dollars (July 2009). CFLs, Lighting expert Professor Howard Brandston is an active US campaigner against banning ordinary light bulbs, and particularly highlights the quality of light problems with CFLs: more, WSJ 30/8/2009 article. There are also quality issues due to the encouragement of cheap Chinese imports of the lights, or their parts. Appearance, price and light quality can influence any decision of what lights to use at home. In a kitchen a fluorescent light is very suitable: In hallways and shared spaces too, a CFL might be better: An outside porch or a garage would use an ordinary light bulb: There is a case for living rooms and other frequently used rooms to vary seasonally: Rarely used rooms and lamps might use light bulbs: Reading lamps may use light bulbs: Halogen lights, LED lights, Emissions do not justify a ban Cars give out greenhouse gas emissions, and are taxed for such emissions, not banned. Light bulbs do not give out gas emissions. Power stations might. Light bulbs are as mentioned by far the most popular lighting choice today. But a future ban also makes no sense: Emission-free households are not just for the future: Ban in low emission states especially wrong There is a great irony that ban favouring politicians in say the EU and North America tend to come from low emission and cool/temperate climate states (North/Central Europe, coastal and northern USA, most Canadian states) - a great irony because their populations are particularly hit by the light bulb ban. A ban in these locations is particularly wrong because: 1. They already use energy sources with low emissions (usually nuclear/hydropower): Why should the ever-increasing number of emission-free power consumers worldwide have their choice of products banned? Why the negative "solidarity"thinking that bans them from using what they want (not just light bulbs), instead ofpositively looking at how other states can be provided with lower emitting power? 2. They more often have cold conditions for light usage: 3. Homes in these areas tend to be bigger, with more light bulbs. This means: 4. Frosted light bulbs are particularly popular in such countries, 5. They particularly benefit from the light bulb heat effect: Clearly any ban should not be permanent, and should not apply throughout areas like the EU, the USA or Canada. Money savings do not justify a ban Emission savings may be a reason to consider a ban. Firstly, consumer savings do not justify a ban on what they obviously want to buy, anymore than it is justified to stop consumers from buying any other products they want to buy and use. Regarding public finances, unlike with light bulb bans, governments gain directly from light bulb taxation that also lowers sales, although taxation itself is wrong in principle and, as said, needs special justification. Also see the efficiency regulation price/savings section for overall arguments, and the following section for more specific reasons why consumer savings from "switching all your lights" are not as great as politicians and public environmetal agencies like to say they are. Energy, Emission, and Cost savings arguments do not hold First of all in the EU documentation (similar to recent Obama statements in the USA June 2009, and to Australian Government statements 2008) talking about “15 million ton CO2 savings” by 2020, projecting old data into the future, the odd and unchallenged assumption is made that the emissions themselves can not be reduced: An emission reduction which the EU in other statements about power station emission control is actually keen to emphasize. Talk about one lot of bureaucrats not knowing what the other lot are saying! Note that exactly the same savings talk using old data is made of "coal power mercury emission savings from a ban on light bulbs", a meaningless assertion since mercury emissions will be drastically reduced over the next few years anyway:more. Emission reductions are possible both directly and by substitution: The idea that efficiency bans on light bulbs and other products are needed to"quickly bring down emissions" does not hold either (more), - and if it did, taxation is a superior instrument to lower the consumption of a safe product. Whatever the size of any energy savings, there is no energy supply shortage - especially not for electricity in developed countries - and if there was, the price rise would lead to consumers increased interest for energy efficent products anyway - no regulation required to steer people to them now, and no regulation required then. That said, the basis given for EU "billions of euros" light bulb ban savings (or Obama June 2009 "billions of dollar savings") will be seen to be misleading on several counts - as even the end March 2009 post-ban decision EU Commission FAQ acknowledges (more). Money, energy and emission savings are linked in talking about consumption, so will be looked at together here. For households, yearly running cost savings are emphasized (running cost = purchase price + usage cost). Replacement Halogen and in particular LED lights are more expensive than ordinary light bulbs (LEDs at 50 US dollars July 2009 for just 40W equivalent lighting, 120 dollars for 60W equivalence). CFLs: CFLs and LEDs: Hoarding: Lack of Use: Referring to ordinary light bulbs and related halogen lights, but also newer "high efficient" versions. Light Bulb Heat Benefit: Halogen usage: More efficient incandescent lights The improved incandescents are expected to cost (at least) as much as CFLs, and of course the prices of lights will no longer be held down by any cheap competing light bulbs. Most market introductions will wait until the bans are in place. Here are 3 ways being looked at to improve the efficiency of incandescent lights: 1. Gas content 2. Filament improvement 3. Reflective bulb coating For more on these developments, also see the good July 2009 New York Timesarticle The July 2009 resurrected Save the Bulb website and blog may also provide updates on new developments, and on general light bulb ban issues. Existing use: Greater energy use than stated: [Power and energy are often confused. Energy is the same as power for a given length of time. 1 kW of power for an hour represents 1 kWh of energy. In ordinary speech it doesn't make much difference, a big power station delivers a lot of energy] Power companies typically need to generate more than twice as as much powerto operate a typical CFL than what the electricity meter - or CFL rating - shows, taking everything into consideration. The problem is defined by the so-called "power factor" (PF) of the lighting used. As in the Wikipedia explanation: "The significance of power factor lies in the fact that utility companies supply customers with volt-amperes, but bill them for watts. Power factors below 1.0 require a utility to generate more than the minimum volt-amperes necessary to supply the real power (watts). This increases generation and transmission costs" Explaining power factor is not easy.. but people do their best. There are several reasons why extra power is needed from power stations, arising from a CFL low power factor: 1. The direct CFL power factor compensation. 2. Grid transmission loss compensation 3. Electricity generation capacitance compensation This is still only the beginning of the CFL power utilizing woes. "Harmonics can cause a variety of network problems: transformer and cable overheating (hence lowering lifespan), motor overheating, premature ageing of capacitors, interference with telecoms systems, possible disturbances in ripple control systems (hot water). Yes, the prospect of cold showers once all households are converted to CFLs ..." All-in-all: Rated brightness is an issue: As Ed Kirshner also explains: Also, as the EU technical report admits, any encapsulating outside envelope, giving the pear shaped CFLs, further lesssens their brightness, and being bigger, particularly at the base, may not fit reading lamps anyway. The problem is further compounded by the fact that smaller lights are technicallyharder to make bright - whether for CFLs or LEDs - and when they are possible, are considerably more expensive. Currently, mid-2009, candle shaped small CFLs are at a supposed 35-40 Watts maximum equivalence, bearing in mind the dubious testing mentioned. With reading or other close up lamps, that might use smaller lights, the CFL brightness issue is particularly marked. To summarize the bright small lights problem: • CFL brightness equivalence rating is an issue, and brightness decreases as the lights are used. Does this give the idea that maybe - just maybe - different lights have different advantages and that maybe - just maybe - politicians might like to wake up to the fact, and stop thinking "one light is better than another because it uses less energy"? Switch on, switch off, leave on: Rated lifespan is an issue: The encouragement of cheap Chinese imports may have lowered quality, including lifespan. The gradual loss of brightness also reduces effective lifespan, US Department of Energy measurements have shown that a 1/4 of excellent (Energy Star) rated compact fluorescent lights do not reach rated brightness after 40% (less than half) of their life. To be passed they must not have lost more than 10% of light output: still a significant amount, at such a relatively early stage of their supposed lifespan. Ordinary light bulbs simply cut out, at the end of their life. CFL use in dimmers for ordinary lights not only shortens CFL life, it can be a direct fire hazard (more). Lack of sufficient warranty (guarantee): According to my research, EU and National government agencies do not acknowledge any of these factors, though end-March 2009 the EU in a new (post-ban!) FAQ admitted some of their calculation errors/omissions. Instead of locally made simple lights, giving local jobs and giving minimal emissions from manufacture or transport, what do we have?.... CFL energy use and carbon emissions relating to manufacture, transport and recycling: In manufacture, the standard argument is that CFLs require 4-6 times more energy to make than ordinary light bulbs, although ZVEI, the German Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers' Association, have given around 10x as the figure. However, it is not just the energy and emissions of manufacture that should be taken into account (after all, CFLs have longer lifespans, which gives some compensation). It is also the greater emissions from the longer transport from the fewer centra in which CFLs are economical to make (China), and it is also the further CFL transport emissions to recycling plants and the emissions of theirreprocessing there, and the further transport of reprocessed parts to different locations. As for recycling, it can not only involve the China transport emissions, the recycling processing itself, wherever it takes place, involves significant energy use: • For households: Also, many of the 20-40 household light bulbs may be small or unusual lights in reading/wall/ornamental lamps: So new (CFL/halogen/LED) lights may not even fitinto these lamps, because of light size or fittings. The cost of buying any new lamps should therefore be added, also the cost of other new fittings, and new expensive dimmable CFL lights, auto-switches and the like, where surviving halogen lights might not be applicable. Halogens are also subject to eventual phase out, so having specific halogenfittings/transformers and lamps can eventually come to grief for those owners too (in the EU, a B class transparent low voltage transformer requiring type with special fitting has a mentioned possible respite, although that will be reviewed). • For society: Subsidies may also be given for increased CFL recycling facilities, again adding to cost. Added note end August 2009: It seems that, for the EU ban, distributors and retailers can keep selling off stock they have... Actual Energy Savings Figures: Small becomes Smaller The first point to make is that no matter how big the savings, a ban is still wrong, for all the reasons already given regarding the need for energy efficiency regulation in order to reach stated energy and environmental objectives. The numbers and the data: For excellent number crunching and research referenced analysis taking into account the factors listed above, and plenty of others, see the Greener Lights website. It's always about the way figures are presented: According to the ban supporting EU Commission itself, lighting is around 15% of the average EU household electricity bill. Small enough, but for USA, Department of Energy says 8.8%, while for New Zealand, "The energy saving potential is of the order of 6% of domestic sector electricity use, or 2% of total electricity use," science consultant David Cogan told the government in a briefing paper (more). So lighting as part of total household energy usage is smaller still, often much smaller. After that, it's down to the savings from swapping one light energy use to another, allowing for savings in heating (and losses in cooling, though less in most locations). For example, from findings by The Canadian National Research Council, Manitoba Hydro, and the University of Manitoba Physics Department, the heat benefit of light bulbs means that the the gross 67% savings quoted of switching to CFLs, turn out to be net energy savings of 17%, and in turn that's 17% off the just 3% that lighting itself represents in total household energy use. Remember, that is just taking into account the heat benefit. Now, whatever fractions of fractions any -possible- eventual small savings are, that is also assuming that overall energy use does not increase, that is, the general research observation that efficient products effectively means cheaper energy and so less worry about wasting energy. Of course, CFLs should be left on anyway for long periods - and may be forgotten about and left on unnecessarily. Notice that ban proponents do not talk of any follow up research to see if they actually get their assumptions right, once a ban is in place: CFL mercury is dealt with below. Fire hazard and other CFL failure problems See Rod Elliott's thorough analysis, the main problem being from directly replacing ordinary bulbs in their fixtures. Examples: However problems may also arise from use in suitable fixtures (see 2008 article, scroll to halfway): CFLs usually come to an end by charring around the base, producing smoke and emitting a bad smell. As Ted Olechna of Ontario's Electrical Safety Authority explained to CBC Canada, that's normal and doesn't mean it'll catch fire. General Electric information: US Government Energy Star advice: More dramatically if rarely, there are explosive risks: A good, if not updated, list of problems faced, comparing different makes and types of CFLs, here. A related problem is the generally short warranty for CFLs, considering the 5-10 year lifespans advertised: CFL radiation as a possible health issue is considered below. Their electromagnetic (especially infrared) radiation may also interfere withelectronic equipment in various ways: Problems seem rarer nowadays, although reportedly, according to a briefing paper prepared for the New Zealand Government in 2008, interference with appliances is still common in households with several CFLs. General Electric also address the issue of infrared radiation interference: The four areas of main concern are: 1. Electromagnetic radiation, at both ends of the frequency spectrum (as ultra-violet radiation, micro waves, and radio waves), and further dealt with below. 2. Mercury content, of which the health and environmental consequences are dealt with in the next section. 3. Light quality, with concern for some migraine sufferers due to CFLs emitted light not containing all parts of the light spectrum (spikes of some light frequencies, omissions of others, which filters and different gas mixes can alleviate at extra expense, but still not completely overcome). 4. Flickering, with concern for epileptics, which should not be an issue in modern lights with electronic ballasts, but in some lights with long usage and/or internal ballast imbalance and/or poor quality manufacture such problems can arise, and some people still claim sensitivity to beating effects too fast for others to notice. Buzzing noise of fluorescents, while more a nuisance than a health issue, was similarly mainly related to old magnetic ballasts, but can still occur, particularly with dimmable CFLs (more from a Seattle Times article March 2009). The Greener Lights site has a referenced rundown of different conditions and possible effects of CFLs. Electromagnetic (EM) radiation Ultra-Violet (UV) Light The UK Government Health Protection Agency recommended in October 2008 fluorescent lights in frequent close use to be encapsulated (giving pear shaped rather than the classic tubular lights), mainly due to UV radiation concerns. Micro and Radio Waves The policy of banning a simple safe product like a light bulb in favour of multimodular LED lamps is questionable enough, but the irony becomes complete with such a ban for environmental reasons, relating to CO2 that the bulbs - and some power stations - are not even releasing in the first place. Fluorescent lights contain a small amount of mercury vapour. Therefore, stringent recommendations apply regarding broken lamps relating to room ventilation and disposal of the lamp parts. The following is taken from a New Zealand report, in turn covering Maine developments. Some points raised: • "Homeowners [should] consider not utilizing fluorescent lamps in situationswhere they could easily be broken, in bedrooms used by infants, small children or pregnant women, or over carpets in rooms frequented by infants, small children or pregnant women." That has all led to Maine becoming the first US state to pass a law (May 2009) requiring manufacturers to limit mercury levels in the bulbs and pay for recycling them (more on recycling below). Recycling of CFLs Gad Giladi, past president of the European Lighting Designers Association, has written a critical account regarding EU recycling facilities, lack of packaging instructions, and misleading comparisons with coal power mercury release, and also looks at actual energy savings and other ban issues. The USA is in no better shape: There is no recycling program in place or planned in America that could handle the number of CFLs proposed. There are limited initiatives, such as 2009 green action project sponsored by national recycler NLR, for non-profit organizations. Deposit-refund schemes for all fluorescent lights would surely be a good idea, regardless of any banning policy. Of course it still doesn't justify bans, alleviating rather than solving the problem. US citizens might like to send their CFLs to Washington, via a website with updates on cfl mercury dangers and developments. Mercury release into the environment Problem from dumped CFLs Mercury impacted on CFL glass is still a problem: With age, mercury is deposited inside the light so that less leaks out as vapour on breakage. This is sometimes held as limiting environmental impact. However, that just means it is leeched into the ground instead, contaminating groundwater, river systems and so on. Mining for mercury Manufacturing process Transport: Ships release of mercury Power station mercury release is not an excuse: Global factors Local factors This is an outdated notion, crucially making various assumptions: 1. The assumption that most power is derived from coal. 2. The assumption that emissions remains at the fixed levels USA Government EPA: 90% power station mercury emission reduction by 2018, (phase 1 = 21% reduction by 2010, phase 2 = 69% further reduction by 2018): Also see what Canada is projecting, 80% lower emissions by 2018, with 52% for 2010 Compare with the EU: The ban proposing EU Ecodesign Committee (as can be checked, though seemingly not online) simply uses old emission data, extrapolates it to 2020, and - just as with carbon emissions - assumes nothing can be doneabout mercury emissions either, justifying banning light bulbs by saying "1.5 million tons more in mercury emissions will be saved" by that year, than is caused by CFLs. If and where power station mercury release is a problem, perhaps there might be a will in the EU to do something about it, rather than just use it as an excuse to ban light bulbs. Of course, given the recently announced global mercury control agreement, if the EU Commission says they have been working on bringing down coal power mercury emissions, why justify bans on the basis that they haven't? No doubt they want to have it both ways! Notice the exact parallell with carbon emissions: In a nutshell: There can hardly be any question which is the greater environmental problem, not just locally but also globally, when the China factors are added to the all the other CFL mercury problems. On the one hand, there are recently highlighted health and environmentalproblems with CFLs, the main suggested replacement. Moreover, every year it is said that "new CFLs will be better". Why the rush to ban light bulbs now then? As it happens, there is just as little future ban justification: In other words: No need to ban now - No need to ban in the future. The EU Commission Ecodesign Committee proposal In Europe, talking to politicians, shopkeepers, even manufacturers few knowanything about the extent of the proposed ban! Technical briefing of the light bulbs to be banned (scroll to bottom) This ban proposal not only includes clear, transparent, light bulbs beginning with100 Watts+, it immediately bans all frosted (non-transparent) light bulbs -including such halogen lights (halogen lights are similar to ordinary light bulbs, but are slightly more light-efficient). For example all the frosted small light bulbs for table and reading lamps areneedlessly banned, since there is no bright "energy saving" CFL or LED equivalents - CFLs can't be made that small with maintained light output beyond 9 Watt or so (tubes too small = light too weak, even for close up use), LEDs are also far too weak that size even when fittings etc allow their use. More: The only halogen which might not be permanently banned (it'll be reviewed) is a class "B" transformer based clear-only low voltage type needing special fittings. Not something just to stick up on your ceiling, no! The CFL, "energy saving" light that few buy today is the only real practicalalternative. Many find this fluorescent lighting unnatural (new gas mixtures and filtering can only make some colour omissions and spikes less apparent), and it is hard to get bright "energy saving" lights of good quality that are not particularly expensive. LED lights show promise, people may as said actually want to buy them, but they are not ready for extensive deployment and again have a different light quality, in itself useful of course. Clearly: The USA including the state of California are going to wait several years with any ban implementation (May 2009: current Congress Bill: confirming 36-month phase-out plan from 2012) Some specific criticism (most criticism has been dealt with)... 1. No, mercury release from power stations does not "outweigh the need" to worry about CFL lights. Power station mercury release is ever decreasing (from less untreated coal being used), and is itself nowadays more easily treatable as explained above. 2. The use of double envelopes not only decreases efficiency but also markedly increases the cost of fluorescent lights, impacting on supposed savings (and they're hardly "unbreakable" as they get unloaded on dump sites where they will still release mercury). 3. "It remains that CFL lamps should be disposed properly" The jobs have mainly gone to China. Another problem is that the encouragement of cheap Chinese imports seems to have lowered quality, as seen in consumer tests. The supposed energy bill "5-10 billion euro savings" is equally woolly. Say Bonjour to Madame Fleury de Paris The "Ecodesign committee" sounds like something out of George Orwell (author of the novel '1984'). "Bonjour Madame Fleury! ......... But of course CFL, LED or Halogen lights still use electricity. Can we do better than this? Dealing with Energy and Emission Problems The two objectives are to have enough energy supply and low-emitting energy supply. Existing coal/gas/oil power stations We find that, indeed, the technology is there, in increasing and diverse ways. The construction of purpose-built carbon fuel plants in which the carbon is taken care of is of course only one way of dealing with the problem: Nuclear power does not have a carbon emission problem, has a well developed technology and can easily provide peak time power. Wind, and other renewable energy sources like solar, wave and tidal remain uneconomical not least because of the problem of energy delivery when it's most needed, at peak usage times. The "old" forms of generating electricity mostly burn fuel of some sort: You can just shovel in more fuel to burn at peak times. As an aside, showing the imagination in looking for ways to generate electricity, there are some interesting European efforts to make systems that can be efficient as well as blending in better with the environment. For example, artificial trees have been designed, that generate electricity either by solar power alone, or combined with wind moving the "leaves". Grid Expansion: Supergrids, an Internet of Electricity Extensive good capacity grids facilitate the exchange of energy between time zones, a continuous giving and taking depending on where peak usage is occuring. Grid Storage: Hydropower and other "banks" Isolated wind or solar energy installations can hardly utilize such storage for feeding the grid. However, since energy delivery at long distances is not a problem, energy storage could be anywhere. So solar, wind, wave, tidal power could be stored commonly in some form, which becomes efficient given the economy of scale, most obviously as a new or existing hydroelectric dam. There is intense interest in getting around the storage problem, usually involving battery or hydrogen fuel cells for local use, including electric cars, in other words off-grid solutions. Electricity Distribution and Consumer Smart Metering See the earlier discussion about the administration of energy and communication networks, including electricity grids. In several European countries, there is publically owned dominance in electricity service provision as well as in its distribution. A country like the USA does not have a tradition of public grid ownership (though there are exceptions, such as in New York state, and in the North-West with some publically owned hydropower generation and transmission). On the face of it, it would seem difficult to organize fair competition between providers using a variety of energy sources, with very different costs (and subsidies) involved. To stand back for a moment, the point is how different the situation would be fromtoday. Smart electricity meters are often mentioned nowadays. The advantage of competition within a neutral distribution network is also seen in the billing procedure: Smart metering or not, Greenhouse gases arise from the burning of fuel (oil/coal/gas/wood/peat), and are also known as carbon emissions, overwhelmingly in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2). The extent to which global warming would be taking place anyway is disputed, but greenhouse gases contribute to the effect and as with all substantial man made emissions the control of their output reduces the disturbance of ecosystems. In a broad as well as top down approach, all control options are considered, with an emphasis on major change before minor change. Power station emissions are therefore compared to all other major emission sources, such as industry and transport, asking the following questions: These comparative questions are asked all the time as we go along, a policy of breadth and depth at the same time. Assuming power station emissions should be dealt with, it then means looking more closely at production and distribution: Particularly, generating and spreading non-emitting (nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, tidal, wave and geothermal) energy on the one hand, and dealing with existing emitting sources on the other. The next step is to look at consumption. 1. Emission-free sources: Efficient distribution as described previously is of course of value regardless of the source of the electricity used. 2. Emitting sources: As with renewable distribution once grids are connected up, these can be relatively quick ways to lower emissions, with interim carbon storage that then is more permanently stored elsewhere, as such sites develop. A further advantage is that such solutions help countries like Australia and Poland keep energy derived from coal for a longer period, while still adhering to international emission agreements. Money, funding, is as always the problem, but can be dealt with in ways that themselves reduce emissions as will soon be seen... The next stage is reducing the consumption of fossil fuel derived electricity, if and when judged necessary. Note: 2. Fossil fuel use as such does not necessarily have to be abandoned, either for not being renewable or for not being emission-free: The point here is then to enable a switch to renewables, for such time it may take to bring fossil fuel emissions down to acceptable levels. The "accepted" argument that fossil fuels have to be abandoned therefore doesn't hold up, here or in other areas like transport, where carbon emission processing for cars could become viable, for example. One way to make any switch of electricity suppliers easier, is of course to improve electricity grid organization and competition, including between emission-free service providers. Let's consider the advantages and disadvantages of various options to reduce consumption! //Fossil fuel electricity price rise// By raising the price of fossil fuel electricity, related consumption is reduced. Either the base price of fossil fuel electricity is raised (by ordering power companies to self finance emission solutions), or a tax is imposed, which can go to any priority in society (in line with essence politics), including emission control subsidies. Advantages: Quick and simple and direct reduction of fossil fuel electricity use, withoutaffecting emission-free electricity users, and without the long-winded bureaucratic expense of working out bans on individual electrical products. Disadvantages: • It can make electricity more expensive for industry at a bad economic time. • It can make electricity more expensive for households at a bad economic time //Targeting electrical product use// When considering individual electric appliances, there are 3 levels of encouraging effective use: Information, then taxation, then banning. They are done in that order. You don't just jump to banning. The reason isn't just because of progressive strategy, it is also out of consideration to consumers. There is also a basic lack of logic in banning safe consumer products. Information Taxation The praise for taxation here should therefore not be misunderstood: It is not of itself a good idea, it is simply better than efficiency regulation, for all concerned. A comparison with cars can be made. Advantages: Governments gain income: Inefficient products (like fan heaters, plasma screens) will still be bought as they need particular attractions to survive on the marketplace because of the inefficiency, as mentioned before. Green ambitions are not sacrificed: In a way, products are charged to "deal with the emissions of their use", similar to say a recycling charge on other goods, the difference being that here, the underlying problem is gradually solved. A reasonable idea might seem to "ban the most inefficient and tax the rest": Disadvantage: Unfair on emission-free households: Light bulbs alone can raise large revenues: Light bulbs are As with other efficiency based bans, light bulbs are being banned not for being unsafe, but as a consumption problem (wasting energy). Better still: Update: Overall: Banning compared to Taxation: What do electrical product bans give governments in extra income? Unlike with - say - a ban on a type of car, it doesn't even give governments the satisfaction of having done anything about the power station emission problem itself. Banning, then, gives less instead of more government income, If banning individual electrical products was anyway to be considered, it wouldhardly first be done on light bulbs. Political Implications of Bans Political implications of a series of bans should not be ignored. When popular products are banned, people will do what they can to continue to getthem. Political resentment is expressed by hoarding (panic buying), and attempts to secure supplies from elsewhere. Finally, regarding light bulbs, with all the political talk of savings and emissions, let us not forget that people spend half their lives under artificial lights, and they are obviously satisfied with the warm glowing bright light quality that ordinary light bulbs give, particularly 100W bulbs, since they keep buying them. All that is created, from products to political ideologies, have their advantages. Imagine an environmental vision that puts major change before minor change, and that respects the freedom of the people in all change. Imagine a democratic vision that says that if you believe in people and seek to understand their desires, not out of a lack of ideology but as part of your ideology, then they will believe in you.
essence welcome set up:1/2 2009
article: 14/3 Electric Strategy without Bans: .doc .rtf
article: 29/3 Light Bulb Tax: link (cut sales, gain income)text size: step + step - default georgia verdana times trebuchet arial recent updates 2009:
(minor updates not listed)
1/8 why CFLs are dim to read with
2/8 targeting electrical products
electrical product taxation
4/8 advantages of nuclear power
electrical product taxation
6/8 USA "cash for clunkers" car deal
8/8 USA "cash for clunkers" car deal
12/8 coming reading lamp problems
14/8 CFL brightness issues
15/8 different lights pros and cons
CFL buzzing
achieving small bright lights
30/8 EU: sales profits from bulb ban
31/8 bulb ban comment on commissioner piebalgs blog
2/9 LED lamp qualities
CFLs using more energy
6/9 [new] "unpopular" light bulbs
8/9 CFL brightness
CFL light quality
9/9 light bulb tax document
bulb tax entry on EU commissioner blog
10/9 overall introduction
light bulb comment, Commissioner Wallstrom
12/9 industrial politics of light bulb ban
peter.thornes@gmail.com
click on headlines in the text to return up to the top
Visionary Politics, Acceptance Politics and the Ideology of Essence
La Quatrième: The Fourth Transformation of Europe
Introduction
A Smaller and More Effective Parliament
The End of the European Commission
The New Axis, European Parliament-Council of Ministers | European Senate
The Head of the European Government
European Budget Efficiency and Local Democracy
An Irish Bedtime Story for all Nice Children and not so Maastricht Adults...
Public networks and Private service providers
The resource waste of Digital Terrestrial TV
Terrestrial frequencies have mobile and interactive advantages,
satellite, cable and fixed line telephony/broadband have capacity for HDTV, 3D-TV
Energy and Emissions Policy: USA example
Electricity and Transport sectors alone are sufficient to meet emission reduction targets,
with measures advantageous in themselves, long term funded for reduced consumer price impact,
without efficiency regulation, industrial carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes
Introduction -- Funding and Impact -- Energy Efficiency -- A New Electric America
Electricity: Generation -- Distribution
Transport: Power Generation -- Regulation -- Taxation
Part 1: Why All Energy Efficiency Regulation is Wrong
Summary
Politicians don't object to energy efficiency as it sounds too good to be true. It is.
The Consumer Side
Product Performance -- Construction and Appearance
Price Increase -- Lack of Actual Savings: Money, Energy or Emissions
Choice and Quality affected
The Manufacturer Side
Meeting Consumer Demand -- Green Technology -- Green Marketing
The Energy Side
Energy Supply -- Energy Security -- Cars and Oil Dependence
The Emission Side
Buildings -- Industry -- Power Stations -- Light Bulbs
A New Car Deal for America
All cars available and their emission output lowered
Part 2: Emission Policy
Introduction: The need - or not - to deal with emissions
The Overall Picture
Emission sources, land and ocean cycles, agriculture and deforestation
Electric Politics in a new Electric World
Electricity's emission-free role also with buildings and transport
Carbon Taxation
Fuel Tax -- Emission Tax
Market Reduction of CO2: Cap and Trade - or Not?
Basic Idea -- Offsets -- Tree Planting -- Manufacture Shift -- Fair Trade -- Surreal Market -- Real Market -- Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs -- Allowance Trading --Companies: Business Stability + Cost -- In Conclusion
Example: The Light Bulb Ban
Summary: Why a light bulb ban is wrong - from every perspective
Official EU, USA, Canada and Australia links to energy efficiency bans
The Politics behind the Light Bulb Ban
How collusion between politicians and manufacturers secured a ban legislation serving to push CFLs, as seen in the ban documentation
Light Bulb Basics
Safe -- Old ain't Bad -- Popular -- Unpopular -- Cheap -- Useful -- Proven Heat Benefit -- Ban on 100W+ Bulbs -- All Lights are Different -- Using Lights at Home
Lighting Energy, Emissions and Cost
Emissions not justify a ban -- Bans in low emission states
Money savings not justify a ban
Energy/Emission/Cost savings rundown
Price factors -- Usage factors
Incandescent usage: New efficient types
CFL usage: Energy Use -- Brightness -- Turning on-off -- Lifespan
Lifecycle -- Switchover cost -- Small eventual savings
CFL Safety
Home Safety -- Radiation -- Health
Mercury [breakage -- recycling -- dumping -- mining -- manufacturing -- transport --power stations]
End Notes
What is the hurry to ban now? -- The EU proposal: What is banned?
Say "Bonjour" to Madame Fleury de Paris
Dealing with Energy and Emission Problems:
Electricity Generation
Coal/Gas Carbon Solutions -- Nuclear/Renewable Development
Grid Expansion
Supergrids, an Internet of Electricity
Grid Storage
The use of Energy Banks
Electricity Distribution and Consumer Smart Metering
Increased efficiency, Green choice, Lower prices
Electricity and Emissions
Different ways to lower emissions and to fund it - Pros and Cons
Production and Distribution
Consumption
Fossil Fuel Electricity Price Rise Effects
Targeting Electrical Product Use
Information and Taxation before Bans
Taxation Pros and Cons:
Taxation based on Efficiency Labelling
Light Bulb Taxation
Why Bans are Wrong
Political Implication of Bans
Introduction: The Politics of Change
Acceptance politics accepts what exists, and fits solutions into that.
It is the politics of major change before minor change.
It is the politics of minor change, since major change is not possible.
They seek to adapt systems to people, and welcome criticism in working towards a new society.
They seek to adapt people to systems, looking for their acceptance without criticism of what they are offered.
It means that everything that is already financed is not questioned.
A more visionary creed is to pool all public income and use it in society according to an agreed priority.
That doesn't mean that boxed off self-financing structures are wrong.
It means that they no longer need to be public, they can be privatized.
What entrepreneurial focus is to business, broad vision should be to politics.
A belief in seeing the beauty of all that is created as a reason for existence,
rather than looking for disadvantages as a reason for destruction.
It is about using available systems and structures according to their specific advantages.
thereby maintaining freedom of information and insight for citizens whose activeparticipation and criticism is sought, with a special recognition of those in society who are not served by private markets.
as distinct independent entities, compared to a greater public whole.
Public support for establishing new privately owned market entrants is maximal.
Public support for existing private enterprise is minimal.
Neither public or private ownership is considered superior, the extent of either will vary according to circumstance.
In fact, since essence always begins with an overall view regardless of what exists now,
it means also considering population count and density in any such decision.
This means that as population count and/or density increases, essence politics moves from left to right on the traditional ideological scale, in the sense of making market competition more viable where it is considered applicable.
Given the questionable outcome of specific CO2 lowering measures,
the stance here is that transport and electricity emissions (typically 4/5 of all CO2 emissions in industrialized nations) should be dealt with for all else they contain, whatever about CO2:
the measures employed also happens to effectivize those industries, and keeps first phase 2020 and 2030 CO2 reduction goals in place.
Then, in a decade or two, if CO2 lowering is still seen as meaningful, the measures are widened and deepened: and nothing has been lost either way.
it is therefore about dealing directly with energy development and emissions,
This is much simpler and more effective, than current meaningless wide-ranging carbon trading legislation, with its numerous looopholes, and international trade implications.
It also avoids the token banning of ordinary light bulbs and other popular products, which just serves to alienate citizens from cooperation in future more meaningful measures, as and when they are required.
A respect for people's opinions can be part of an ideology.
See where they put their money: Since 9 out of 10 lights sold in the EU (19/20 in the USA) are ordinary light bulbs, that's sending politicians a clear message of what citizens want.
However, as said, public entities never compete, maintaining freedom of information and insight for citizens whose active participation and criticism is sought, with a special recognition of those in society who are not served by private markets.
It means the public entities are effective through the dialogue they have with theirusers and owners: The people.
They have annual general meetings for their owners, and continuous communication in other ways.
Of course it is.
Large public services of general interest can and should have "Annual General Meetings" televised and/or transmitted over the Internet.
Audience participation includes questions from the general public, answered later if not possible on the day.
Whether it's bus, rail, post, gas, electricity, or for that matter health andeducation and other services,
the responsible civil servants and politicians announce what they are doing, what they are planning,
reflecting to some extent the practice with private company AGMs, except that no voting takes place.
Introduction
In comparison with other federations like say the USA, Canada or Australia, the EU is a looser federation of states. In the EU, the Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council of Ministers (aka the Council of the European Union, not to be confused with the Council of Europe, or even the European Council!) can for the USA respectively be compared with the Presidential administration, Congress, and individual state governments, although legislative and executive scope is rather different, as will be seen.
The President of the Commission assigns different ministerial roles to the commissioner candidates he/she is presented with (more on the appointment system of the Commission and of the work it does, here).
For example, the Environment Commissioner talks to his/her cabinet and department (called a "directorate-general") about an environment proposal, gets agreement with other Commission members about it, then says to the European Parliament "Ok folks how about this?". Now, the European Parliament has members elected by the people of the EU. Like other parliaments it has a lot of committees, so an environment committee might then add a comment to the proposal and pass it on to the plenum, or full parliament, for a vote. After that has passed, it's off to the "Council of Ministers" (aka Council of the EU), here being the Environment Ministers of all the member states, who then consider the proposal and the comments, and their decision is passed back to the Environment Commissioner.
As it happens, the route can vary, say between the Council of Ministers and Parliament - but that should give the general idea.
The best that member state politicians can come up with, is petty political infighting about voting percentages or number of commissioners (who are supposed to be independent of their countries anyway) and legalese relating to changing a few clauses here and there.
The question is how such cooperation is best arranged.
To understand the EU is to understand its roots in a post-war 6 nation set-up with limited trade-based functions, where a Commission appointee structure served the participants well.
That is not the case today.
The organization and rule of the EU is in fact more akin to the old Soviet Union:
The Commission, with the President as "Secretary", the 5 Year Budget Plans, the Committees under the Commission with their decrees as to what European citizens can or cannot do (July 2009 sidenote: as just reported, EU ban on "overly curved cucumbers" etc is lifted, yet, as the report says, most other product restrictions remain, despite EU officials often having denied the existence of such legislation as a "myth").
Only the legislation approval route is different in the EU:
Legislation initiation and execution are as democratically removed from European citizens, as it was from citizens in the Soviet Union.
The problem of course is that expansion makes reform ever more difficult, which is why those who do not want reform actively seek expansion, but the structure remains poor also from their perspective.
The parliament would be smaller and have a better organized and more normal parliamentarian role, which a smaller, more cross-border oriented role of the EU itself in turn helps achieve.
The roots of people democracy balanced by state democracy (as in the USA with the House of Representatives and Senate) is already there, with, respectively, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.
Whether European government is based on the American or French style executively empowered presidency, or on the more traditional European style of government based on parliaments and prime ministers, matters less: either form would be - in democracy, efficiency, and potential transparency - better than the commission system of today.
A Smaller and More Effective Parliament
They also state how little speaking time they have (any parliament member's complaint of course! - but on the evidence, particularly bad in the EU parliament). Most debates, or debate-times, are apparently quite farcical, in comparison to other parliaments. In fairness, the need for translation prevents a natural free flowing repartee, even if the conditions were there, but there are clearly problems that can and should be addressed.
In a larger sense of course it includes all the other possible reform measures mentioned here. Having communicated with MEPs relating to various issues in this text, it is noticeable how well qualified they all are. Economists, trade unionists, lawyers, doctors and doctoral degree holders, ex-ministers and so on. The question is why nearly all so unquestionably accept the current system. Is it just fun to hang out in Brussels on a good salary and drink Belgian beer?
This currently stands at 736 with 18 observers, down from 785 before the June 2009 elections. Around 600 is probably the upper workable limit for an effective parliament, as reflected in the size of say the British and German national equivalents. The US House of Representatives has 435 voting members.
In other words less decisions in Parliament, devolving more decisions nationally and locally. This in turn is aided by a radically changed and more effective EU net-pay Budget system, so that net-pay countries do not have to claw back money they have paid in to the EU in order to fund local decisions, like today. See thesubsidiarity section below.
Local decisions just need to abide with any EU regulations that are common to all member states. For example, abiding by any fair trade regulation regarding subsidies to failing private companies that do business in other EU countries.
it would be to have it in an advisory rather than legislative capacity, but advisory functions are of course possible in simpler ways.
The axis European Parliament-Council of Ministers is both more democratic and efficient in European legislation.
The Commission is an enduring hangover from the days of a small, limited, European Coal and Steel Community, a common market for coal and steel set up between 6 countries, when the Commission was called the High Authority.
That was then, this is now.
Now we have 27 member nations in wide-ranging political and economic cooperation.
Now we have 27 unelected Commissioners, supposedly wise and independent, with sole rights to initiate and execute legislation that affects 500 million citizens.
Now we have 736 elected Members of Parliament with no real relationship to the Commission (Government) and who basically just look on and give advice to the Commission and to national politicians, whatever about some approval functions it is allowed to share with the national politicians, who meet as the Council of Ministers.
Real power is in the axis Commission - Council of Ministers, the latter (in the sense that they can be individual heads of state, and meet as the European Council) of course also appointing the former.
Do you not feel just a little bit marginalized?
If so, why do you not protest more about it?
Commission structures, unelected "wise heads", that advise parliaments and governments, whether as appointments to the upper houses and senates that largely serve such a function, or in directly advising parliamentary committees and government departments.
the appointment of commissioners seems to be more by political cronyism and ad-hoc by country,
perhaps we don't completely have la-crème-de-la-crème ruling Europe (and it would of course not excuse the lack of democracy then either).
legislation initiation would largely shift to the European Parliament that forms a Government, with continuing legislative approval by the Council of Ministers.
The New Axis, European Parliament-Council of Ministers
Comparisons with the United States usually gives the response "Europe is not the United States!",
"No more power to Brussels!"
Democracy by State = The Senate = The Council of Ministers
legislation initiation could be by either, with approval of the other, but as in Western democratic tradition, initiation via the European Parliament would greatly dominate.
As in some other parliaments, individual MEPs could have limited rights to propose legislation,
while limited rights to initiate legislation from the Council of Ministers is mainly of benefit to smaller countries.
it would be structurally more effective than the Commission system:
Clearer departmental organization than the Commissioners/Directorates-General set up,
for example putting in a Competition and an Internal Market and Services portfolio under Trade or Enterprise and Industry, putting in Multilingualism under Education and Culture, and putting in Financial Programming and Budget, like Taxation and Customs Union, under Economic and Monetary Affairs,
overall ending today's bureacratic bend-over-backwards diplomatic nicety needed tofind odd roles for commissioners, instead of finding ministers for normal roles.
might be the cry, the fear that countries with many MEPs might dominate among ministerial appointments.
Of course, assuming appointments based on competence, that is itself not wrong or undemocratic.
But ministerial selection would anyway be based on party rather than country.
Also, of course, national governments often have good regional representation.
In the new Europe, this could be guaranteed:
The Head of European Government might, for example, have to present his or herlist of ministers to the European Council, who can reject them en bloc but not individually.
The right to rejection might be limited to a couple of times, to avoid a standstill.
This is rather similar to today's right of the Parliament to reject the appointed Commission, except that small countries have proportionately greater power in the Council than in the Parliament, to make their feelings known.
No problem.
A European Senate then substitutes for the Council of Ministers, the latter still meeting regularly.
Having two senators gives attendance flexibility and other advantages, as in the US Senate.
If national governments change, so do the senators.
The reason this is different from the USA is because of European national sovereign tradition.
No arguments about "number of commissioners per country",
No charades about "representing Europe but not your country", with countries nevertheless wanting to have their own Commissioners.
European Senators act in their countries' interests.
That's what they are there for.
The Head of European Government
It doesn't change the organizational principles whether it is a majority party Prime Minister, or an elected President.
However, all nations would put forward their own candidates, and a candidate from a large nation could be expected to win, alienating citizens of smaller countries....
On the other hand, national politicians are not always popular, and in the USA surprisingly often smaller state candidates seem to win, though of course it is a more homogenous federal arrangement.
The ministerial appointment process is outlined above
Of course, one can say that is part of democracy within any sovereign entity.
However, there are 2 more factors here:
The Council of Ministers/Senate is still there, with its role in legislation approval.
New Budget efficiency, which in turn brings increased subsidiarity, that is, increased local decision making in Europe.
European Budget Efficiency and Local Democracy
Germany does not pay 25 billion euros or so every year (within a 5 year budget plan) to the EU and claw back 7 billion for East German development and 3 billion for cross-border initiatives.
Germany pays in 18 billion and looks after its own East German and other internal affairs.
Greece simply gets 5 billion.
whether in economy, trade, infrastructure, culture, education, justice, foreign policy or any other matter.
Not being so involved in local affairs does not make European cooperation less ambitious, there might for example be more joint energy ventures, scientific research and so on. Since these are greater individual decisions, it means the Parliament becomes more effectively focused, rather than dealing with lots of smaller matters that can be devolved locally (see suggestions for a more effective parliament, above).
in terms of funding for health, education, infrastructure and enterprise development, which, humanitarian aspects aside, of course also helps the other member states in terms of development contracts, expanded markets and a more skilled labour pool.
Local decisions and own funding for local issues,
closer to the people most affected by a decision -- they live there,
closer to the people who pay most for a decision -- they pay the local taxes.
local councillors, businessmen and farmers have to apply for European funding to top up any local or national funding received: Or, to put it another way, the "matching funds" game, where getting money (back) from the EU requires local co-funding.
they no longer have to claw back Budget money, they keep those resources so that decisions (with the same total funds available) are made only locally and nationally, always following any applicable European legislation regarding, for example, industry subsidies.
it would therefore not mean winding down the same subsidies for farmers, if that is what national governments want to spend their retained/received money on:
French and Irish governments have the same post-CAP as pre-CAP resources, future Budget decisions being subject to negotiations just like today.
An Irish Bedtime Story for all Nice Children and not so Maastricht Adults
On the sunny day that it was they decided to go out together.
Everyone had to agree on what they would do.
"So", said Daddy Brusselsprout "Let's all go for a picnic!"
"No", said Aunt Erin, "I don't want to".
Did they then think of something else, that they might indeed agree on?
Oh yes they did?
Oh no they didn't!
Daddy Brusselsprout asked all the others anyway, isolating Erin, and then asked her if instead, she would like to go with them to the park and eat out of a lunch basket....
There have been "Nice" and "Maastricht" treaties in the past regulating how the EU works, currently a "Lisbon" Treaty has in principle been ratified everywhere except by Ireland
(though the Czech president has delayed signing the Czech Parliament approval, there are German constitutional court issues, and the Polish President has declared that he will be the last to sign the approval there).
A referendum was this time only held in Ireland, so the major country politicians pointing their wobbly fingers at this country should face up to the fact that they denied their own citizens the same choice, given the very possible No votes that would have ensued, judging from past referendums in Denmark, Netherlands and France, out of the few referendums that have been held, then as now.
A second Irish referendum exactly like the first will be held October 2 2009, since people voted "the wrong way" the first time.
If there's another No vote, there'll be (whatever else is said) further Irish referendums every 6 months or so until "Yes" is obtained, and Ireland can rejoin the others as they - ignoring anything the Irish say - implement the Lisbon treaty from next year.]
Proper market organization would do away with this scenario.
One way of increasing competition between distributors is to build up parallell networks. Consider mobile telephony for example.
But what you get is:
1. A more expensive total rollout cost than if a single system is used.
2. Poor rural coverage, with a profit focus on well populated areas.
3. Poor direct competition between service providers because users have to switch networks to get at a different service.
That's not all. In considering states like (in Europe) Ireland, Sweden or Finland as distributive areas, we see states that not only have a low total population count, but also have a low population density along with it. In such states, competing national distribution networks make even less sense.
However, we then face the alternative problem of a national distributive monopoly.
The first point, which some politicians are now rightly raising, is to separate ownership of service provision from ownership of distribution as far as possible.
But then there is still the need for the distributor to be neutral towards all service providers within, or wishing to be within, its network.
Also, the need for easy public monitoring of any monopoly or near monopoly distribution, not just to ensure equal treatment of existing or potential service providers in the network, but also to ensure good national coverage.
Now, essence politics is about the clear understanding of the different advantages of public and private ownership, and how they can complement one another, as described in the Introduction.
So here we see the value of a public non-competing whole, a neutral universe within which discrete private entities compete on fair and equal terms.
But we are talking about public ownership under the new criteria.
The public role would mainly be to oversee the capacity of and access to the network, with particular respect to new entrants.
Citizen users would have specific board representation, as would serviceproviders.
Actual network maintenance would also be overseen by the service providers:
Noone is more keen to have efficient networks than the immediate users of those networks.
Annual General Meetings would be open affairs including their transmission in public media and/or online, and including a special consideration of consumer criticism and suggestions, at such and other times.
Note that this should apply to all other publically owned services in society, that are of general interest.
New smart electricity meters, internet access, and telephony access options, allow automatic continuous price and quality based switching between providers as well as subscription options from them, so that consumers can get the deal that suits them at the lowest possible price, with simple one-off itemized billing from the neutral public distributors.
Consumers can at any time see how much they are paying, how much they are owing, and what alternatives cost, and can easily themselves switch providers, as well as having it done automatically.
A policy of state/federal reconstruction sees the concept applied to all distributive networks, selling off public service providers and nationalizing private networks.
Examples apart from electricity and fixed line telephony include gas, cable TV,and mobile broadband.
Such uses, including handing out satellite dishes if needed, are cheaper than rolling out and maintaining digital TV networks, which, unlike cable/satellite transmission, cannot effectively deliver and compete in coming high definition or 3D-TV formats because the capacity isn't there.
Terrestrial frequencies are ideal for mobile and interactive communication, a mobility not needed when watching TV in a living room, particularly HDTV that needs big screens to be enjoyed.
Mobile internet broadband, including its digital TV rollout to DVB-H or similar standard, is terrestrial TV by another name anyway, complementing and not just copying what standard use of satellite/cable can achieve.
In other words, big chunks of those frequencies should not be blocked with old style analogue-copying TV, yet another area of dumb-ass communication politics that also forces people to purchase "converter boxes" of no future relevance.
Measures advantageous in themselves that also meet emission reduction targets, without energy efficiency regulation, without industrial carbon taxes, and without cap and trade
Politicians are keen to show that they are doing something about it.
Enthusiasm is a good quality.
So is the ability to calm down, stand back, consider the overall situation, and come up with a comprehensive strategy.
For the sake of simple discourse,
Emissions = Greenhouse gas (carbon) emissions, usually taken to be CO2, carbon dioxide
Emission-Free = Low emission nuclear or renewable energy
Compare with complicated all-involving expensive circuitous cap and trade schemes, and with efficiency regulation and the restrictions and reduction of choice that come with it, regulation not necessary anyway since there is no energy supply problem, and since business and consumers can make efficient choices themselves to the extent they find it meaningful and profitable.
Introduction
1. Are valuable in themselves.
2. Meet emission reduction targets with minimal business disruption and expense.
Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect on electricity bills or transport cost.
The impact on the businesses is further lessened by the stability and predictability surrounding the funding.
Since only electricity and transport are involved, other business continues as usual and consumers and society in general are spared expense and disruption.
This is even more obvious from having no energy efficiency regulation either - see below.
today's all-encompassing Cap and Trade (emission trading) suggestions, with unpredictability, expense, and needless disruption from normal business practice on one hand, or unnecessary profiteering from free allowance handouts with little actual emission reduction on the other hand - together with extensive regulation on what people can or can't buy and use.
1. There is increasing consensus that reduction attempts have no value: In that case little has been lost, since the described changes in electricity and transport industry carry their own benefit, or
2. Consensus remains that CO2 emission reduction should continue, in which caseAmerica is on track, and may continue with more specific emission reduction efforts towards 2050 that extend electricity and transport measures and can involve other industries, if necessary.
Emissions can and should be dealt with directly, as described.
If it's felt that emissions are not being brought down quickly enough, then product taxation is better than bans since governments gain income with the lowered sales, income that can be used to further lower emissions (renewable projects, home insulation schemes etc) more than remaining product use causes them. Taxation is not otherwise justifiable, for similar reasons to bans.
If they feel energy efficiency saves them money, they can make energy efficient choices.
There is no need for government to force them to save.
Inefficient products need to have specific advantages - otherwise noone would buy them.
Performance, construction, appearance and price advantages are all variably related to inefficiency.
For example a given car using more energy is faster and/or may be safer (heavier construction). Sealed buildings without opening windows or balconies are efficient buildings, but not of universal appeal. Dishwashers with a given motor unit and reduced energy consumption may not perform as adequately, leading to longer usage times or upgrades to more energy using versions.
for products used short term, and/or rarely: Consider light bulbs in rarely used lamps or rooms, or computers often changed for new models, or second cars.
Efficient products can mean greater - not less - energy use:
1. Less energy use lowers energy prices, increasing energy use again.
Conversely, less electricity use may raise unit cost of electricity, for power companies to cover their costs. While this helps keep down energy usage and emissions, it doesn't give the supposed electricity bill savings.
2. Efficient products in themselves effectively mean cheaper energy, increasing energy use.
More on savings below.
Obama the Driver of Legislation also remembers about being Obama the Communicator and Facilitator.
• Emission processing (carbon capture and storage solutions)
• Energy substitution (with nuclear or renewable energy)
Most electricity utility companies are not in direct competition and can thereforecompare results achieved/achievable with different processing and substitution measures, "best practice" scenarios, also in regular future meetings.
The Obama administration sets out targets based on such consultation, within the overall reduction sought.
Target achievement is monitored by state regulators, as has been the practice with other Clean Air enactments.
Intermittent solar-wind power needs wider grid dispersal (preferably to different time zones) and/or energy storage solutions (eg off-peak New Mexico solar power could pump up water in Californian dams).
The only real alternatives are hydropower and nuclear power, and with limits of the possibility and desirability of damming up rivers, that leaves nuclear power.
Making change more difficult is the fact that are over 520 individual grid owners, often generating the electricity in the grids and therefore they have no interest in opening their grids up for competition.
Operational coordination also need to take into account the the existence of 127 control centres, 2 levels of grid planning (regional and utility), and 2 levels of grid regulation (federal and state).
These problems are well known and have in different ways been highlighted by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Jon Wellinghoff in a recentHouse hearing, predecessor Joseph Kelliher last year in a Senate hearing and by industry insiders like Stephen Burnage of RETCO.
Intermittent energy also calls for larger grid areas under single operational controlto be effective, ideally also with an energy storage solution tied in (more).
While road transport, automobiles, is the main example used (more), there are parallells with trains, planes and ships.
However, a recent University of California Berkeley study suggests trains may cause more emissions than planes, Scientific American June 2009 article: "A large aircraft emits about three times the greenhouse gases per passenger kilometer traveled than a train during operation. But if you consider the infrastructure that supports train and light rail travel, it effectively increases greenhouse gas emissions by a factor of 155 percent. A similar calculation for jets only increases the effective greenhouse gas emissions by 31 percent. The two modes of transport are basically neck-and-neck, but on the U.S. east coast, where fossil fuels provide electricity for rail travel, trains end up being bigger greenhouse gas emitters than planes."
The Economist article, December 2008:
"....the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change puts the shipping [greenhouse gas contributions] at nearly 4.5%, about twice as much as the share of aviation. And, though shipping is now in decline, by 2020 emissions are expected to rise by 30%. Since ships burn bunker oil, the dirtiest of fuels, that means not just more CO2 but also more "particulate matter", [soot, sulphur] which, according to a controversial paper published in 2007, is already responsible each year for about 60,000 deaths from chest and lung diseases, including cancer. Most of these occur near coastlines in Europe, East and South Asia."
A Guardian article, cites an International Monetary Organization study predicting that by 2020, emissions from ships would increase up to 72%.
• Emission processing (carbon capture and storage solutions)
• Energy substitution (with electricity, hydrogen fuel cells, or other means)
As with power station emission processing, it can also involve reducing noxious substances in the emissions, quite apart from CO2 gas.
Carbon sequestered from emissions can be collected at gas stations for later permanent storage.
Notice that fuel efficiency regulation undertaken for emission reasons ignores the possibility of such solutions: A gas-guzzling car can have low emissions from such solutions, possibly retrofitted to existing cars.
Why?
Because energy and emission concerns can be addressed without affecting consumer choice.
Unlike power stations, cars are appliances, and car properties are directly affected by efficiency (and, in practice, emission) regulation. That is, price, performance, construction, appearance are all variably affected without necessarily giving thesavings sought, cars most obviously having speed and/or safety (weight) advantages with extra energy use. Efficiency modifications seeking to maintain these properties may not be possible (or they would likely have been done already), and if modifications are indeed possible they add to price, cutting whatever savings there may be, savings which don't apply anyway to short-term and/or intermittent (second car) use.
But anything affecting oil supply raises its price and reduces demand, which in turn increases demand for fuel efficient cars anyway.
General Motors supposedly went bankrupt ignoring public demand for such cars, so presumably the last thing they need is to be told by President Obama to be make cars that are fuel efficient!
This is done by emission taxation, in a number of bands.
However, here it is presented as a clear alternative to having cars banned.
Moreover, the taxation could be fiscally neutral: That is, by involving any existing sales taxes as well, low emission cars would be cheaper than they are today, so people are not just hit by taxes (any separate federal and state taxes could still be kept separate within the system). Such a tax structure also stimulates the production of low emission cars, including electric or hydrogen powered types.
Also, if desired emission reduction is not achieved, high end tax rates can be increased, which in turn gives government income that can be used for electric car subsidies or other projects, further redressing the balance and lowering emissions.
More in the car section below.
- whether from Consumer or Society point of view
There is no particular need for society to save on energy, overall savings, if any, will be seen to be much lower than assumed, and emissions can as seen be dealt with directly.
A government that is nonetheless worried about energy use (like oil) can simply increase the price of it by taxation.
• gives a bounceback effect increasing their use, their emissions, and their price, again
• makes a switch to renewable energy more uneconomical to make
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Any reduction of emissions needed is achieved by working directly with electricity and transport sectors as described above, limiting business disruption and cost to consumers, and letting them buy what they want.
If it really was necessary to target products, then taxation would be a far superior instrument to lower consumption, raising government income as it does so, income that can fund emission reduction more than remaining product use causes it.
This is helped by inefficient products often being cheap and having relatively short life-spans, like light bulbs: Given 2 billion annual US light bulb sales, a massive government income potential is clearly there, and would be accepted by the public as better than a ban for a product they obviously like.
However, taxation itself has disadvantages, similar to bans. Direct energy and emission measures remains the best course of action.
We can live in caves and use candles.
We can also look positively at how to supply any energy that is needed, within any emission criteria that needs to be put on it.
"We are not banning products, we are phasing them out!"
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
Energy efficiency regulation - by definition - excludes the manufacture,immediately, or by gradual phase-out, of a given type of product that does not meet the stated efficiency requirements.
Inefficient products need to be especially attractive.
Why?
Because energy efficiency is obviously a useful feature, so inefficient products need to have great compensating attractions.
Think of say, the attraction of sports cars and pre-fab buildings or the fast heat from fan/bar heaters.
The popularity of inefficient products is of course why banning them is supposed to bring such great savings:
There is little benefit in banning unpopular products!
"People obviously like these products, despite all our campaigns! Maybe we shoulddeal directly with energy and emission problems, and let people continue to use what they want!"
"But we do care about the people! Look at all the money we are letting them save!"
People are stopped from buying products they want, to supposedly save them some money.
The thought is that energy savings alone is what consumers should want:
"Switch all your lights and save X euros/dollars/pounds a year!"
Of course, the failure of such campaigns shows that people don't just want energy efficiency in a product.
Cheapness is a factor, but people don't keep buying something just because it's cheap, just like they don't avoid products just because they are expensive, or no expensive alternative products would exist and be bought:
In fact, there are very good examples of how long-lasting - and expensive - batteries or washing-up liquids are bought by the public. Advertising contributes to that, advertising that for example "energy saving" light manufacturers don't bother too much about, as it is easier just to let the Government ban competing products instead.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a free lunch....
Conversely, to maintain performance with the greater energy efficiency that laid down standards require of a product, the product need modifying expense (= section further down!).
But performance efficiency is not the same as energy efficiency.
Inefficient heaters (fan/bar types) may heat a room more quickly than efficient oil-filled/storage types, inefficient cars may be fast because of their inefficiency, inefficient screens (plasma screens) may have resulting contrast and viewing angle advantages, inefficient lights (ordinary light bulbs) will nonetheless respond quickly with bright broad spectrum light, and so on.
Even if efficiency standards are adjusted for different motor sizes (compare with cars), it means that the consumer who wants to maintain performance upgrades to a more energy using product.
Alternatively, poorly performing energy efficient appliances are simply used longerto achieve the same result, again not saving energy.
A lose-lose situation for all concerned.
The situation is similar with say EU regulation on heating system pumps and otherheating equipment or the furnaces and catering equipment of USA proposals, apart from the general household goods common to both.
Refrigerators and freezers have similar arguments against regulation, but in reverse.
In turn it affects usage.
Efficient buildings are sealed buildings.
That means windows that can't open, no balconies, no open plan rooftop communication: Not always what people want.
Of course, that doesn't mean no buildings will have balconies in the future, it means that to keep within the efficiency regulation for a type of building, architects no longer have the option to build as they - and the purchasers and occupiers - might wish.
Suitably shown in how Edison's simple and safe light bulb is sacrificed in the name of "environmental progress" for complex mercury containing "energy saving" lights, or multimodular white light LED lamps.
[For all the reasons why it's wrong to ban inefficient electrical products using light bulbs as example, see the relevant section]
That is assuming that modifications can actually be made to meet the standard required. In other words, it's not just about paying more, a given product may not be possible to modify according to what say a US Department of Energy or an EU Ecodesign Committee wants (and of course regardless of what the paying public wants).
This is a valid point. However, there are two arguments against that:
• cheap competing inefficient products, keeping down prices overall, have beenremoved.
• there are fewer manufacturers making complex products, again reducing competition.
Manufacturers charge what they can on the marketplace, regardless of the product quantity they deliver.
Competition is what keeps prices down, and of course gives variety of choice for consumers.
Similarly: If you have accessories for products that will no longer be made, the accessories become useless too (as with dimmers, timers, sensors suited for ordinary light bulbs, but not suited for fluorescent "energy saving" light replacements).
The one group in society that might be expected to voice some concern - consumer journalists - say nothing either, in fact they are "on board" too, forever exhorting people to "switch and save money", regardless of any product features sacrificed in the process, regardless of actual and total cost to consumers.
Regarding the industrial politics that can get involved, more about the process of the EU light bulb ban here.
In researching the EU light bulb ban, as described in detail below, I did not encounter any European government or EU agency giving truthful figures regarding savings: That is they were purely based on purchase prices and the usage involved of sticking one light beside another (still getting the figures wrong, incidentally).
In real life, energy use may end up greater, not less, and any money/energy/emission savings are not of the order suggested (and emission savings depend on the energy source emitting gases in the first place, not true of using electrical products in households with emission-free electricity, for example).
They may not use a building much but nonetheless face high charges (since lease/rental charges also reflect building cost). Also think of appliances in short-stay or second homes. Even with permanent occupation, appliances inside a building are not always used much, as with lighting in rarely used rooms, or lamps. Thosefrequently changing say cars/computers/TV-sets for new models, may also lose rather than save money.
It effectively means cheaper energy use, so people just use more energy.
So cars are driven more - lessening the attraction of using public transport.
So heating, lighting, computers, TV-sets and other appliances are unnecessarilyleft on... since energy bills aren't as high.
While that isn't particularly hard to imagine, Scottish research from 2008 actually had findings along such lines, relating to business energy usage.
Cambridge University research (May 2009 report) also confirms the increased energy usage.
Terry Barker, of the Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research, showed that if the International Energy Agency's (IEA) recommendations for efficiency measures are followed in full in the next few decades, results will likely fall far short of expectations:"The green stimulus packages being implemented to tackle the financial crisis in several countries all include investments in energy efficiency", said Barker. "They may be a lot less effective at reducing energy use than expected because of the rebound effect, especially in developing countries."
"That is potentially important because it will lead to us over-estimating what certain policies will achieve", said Steve Sorrell, a researcher at the UK Energy Research Centre and an energy policy expert at the University of Sussex.
-- gives another bounceback effect increasing their use, their emissions, and their price, again
-- makes a switch to renewable energy more uneconomical to make
This is seen in current (mid 2009) energy markets.
This means that the normal market mechanism where competition assures quality, in the sense of satisfying the various desires of consumers, is put out of play.
There have been quality question marks around the (relatively) cheap Chinese "energy saving" lighting now flooding the market (and which form part of Western branded lamps as well).
The EU answer is quality inspection rather than open market competition to see that consumers are satisfied, and the USA seems to be heading the same way.
Note that inspection of products to make sure not only that they are safe but also that they adhere to labelled consumer information standards such as Energy Star categories, is obviously good and important - but so is freedom for consumers to buy what they want, and a reputation thereby gained on the market place.
This is very understandable in the EU - for those of us familiar with Brussels love of Soviet bureaucracy.
But the USA?
The Manufacturing Side of Energy Efficiency
The "New Car Deal for America" section below looks at General Motors.
Probably the last company on this planet that needs energy efficiency regulation, since not making energy efficient cars was supposedly a reason for them going bankrupt, a lesson as clear as any about satisfying such - or any other - consumer demand.
The whole point about free markets is of producers competing to satisfy the demand of consumers.
Do politicians know better than the market outcome, what products should or should not be manufactured?
Even the US Congress seems to be falling for this concept.
It is less surprising that in the EU the Soviet-bloc sounding "Ecodesign Committee" is busy defining what can or can't be manufactured for citizens to use.
What it obviously means - and politicians hum and haw about - is that people are considered too stupid to know their own good, despite the fact - see previous section - that they may have very good reason to prefer inefficient products!
There is actually no need for society to save on energy anyway (next section).
Politicians stress the opportunities for manufacturers in making more energy efficient products, somewhat cynically one can observe the truth in that, if all other choices are going to be banned anyway. That is not to take away the value of research and implementation of energy efficiency, but efficiency is an advantage among many others.
What is of direct value is emission reduction technology:
Car emissions are brought down both by substitution technology (such as hydrogen/electricity propulsion) and by carbon capture technology, the latter as researched at Georgia Tech, Atlanta for example (see Emission Side of Efficiency, below).
Electrical product efficiency doesn't lower any emissions if power station energy is emission-free already, and the emission reduction resulting from bans is small anyway, see Savings section above.
The manufacturers can themselves highlight energy efficiency in their products.
Regulators make the assumption that markets fail because people prefer cheap but inefficient products to expensive but efficient products:
Light bulbs are the trail-blazing example, where supposedly noone buys the main suggested replacement, fluorescent energy saving lights or emerging LED lampsbecause they are too expensive. Yet the manufacturers do little themselves to promote them, relying instead on official-but-boring campaigns to get people to "switch all their lights", as well as relying on upcoming bans on cheap light bulbs to help them out.
Clearly, like any other manufacturers or distributors, they could have imaginativeadvertising campaigns highlighting the energy saving and other advantages of their products as well as other forms of market communication and research to improve their products to the liking of consumers: with rather than without ordinary light bulbs they can choose from too.
The Energy Side of Energy Efficiency
2. Nuclear energy is long-lasting and potentially renewable (short-term via breeder reactors, long-term as nuclear fusion).
3. When used for electricity, renewable/nuclear energy can relatively quickly be spread to other regions via grid interconnectors.
4. As finite sources become scarcer, their price rises, reducing suchconsumption anyway, and the choice of renewable energy resources becomes more natural on the market place.
Taxes or subsidies can of course speed up the effect before then.
In other words, if the energy supply is there, building a power station is no better or worse for society to satisfy demand, than building a shop or factory to satisfy other demand.
However, at least in North America and Europe, it still does not pose the samegeopolitical problems as fuel imports (and it's unlikely that cross-border grids would be developed anyway, between nations that have a risk of questionable relations).
Besides, it needs to be weighed against the advantage for any participating state of adhering to internationally set carbon emission levels, remembering that local conditions play a big part with renewable energy (wind, sun, falling water etc) and that the expansion of a generating facility is usually easier than setting up a new one.
So if one source or connection is knocked out, others can take over, also automatically, as it is sensed not only by grid management applications, but also by new types of consumer smart meter (see later sections).
- by using new and alternative supplies of that particular fuel
- by using alternative energy sources
Whatever leads to oil supply shortages and price rises (industrial expansion, geopolitical problems, finite fuel depletion) in turn leads to energy efficient cars beingfavoured by consumers, without any need to regulate for it.
Energy efficiency as a way of to string out, to prolong, the use of oil as gasolene makes no sense.
Regulation-keen environmentalists might rather be expected to say "bring it on" regarding the demise of cars using such fuel, hastening a switch to other energy sources.
The reason is the easy adaptability of such taxes to changing situations, reducingoil consumption as needed while also providing government income.
Any impopularity of taxation should be weighed against its usefulness, clearly communicated by politicians, and that it avoids bans for consumers, with all the disadvantages as listed in the consumer section above.]
1. That depends on emissions actually being released!
Why should those with emission-free electricity not be able to buy the electrical products they want to use?
2. Emission savings from energy efficiency regulation are not that great anyway - see the Savings section.
In short, emissions should be dealt with where they are caused: Action on power stations and cars for example, as opposed to banning types of household electrical products.
Note that even if the desire was felt to target electrical products, taxation would be better, since not only are consumption and therefore also the related emissions cut, but governments gain income, that can be used to further reduce carbon emissions more than any remaining targeted product use is causing such emissions.
Energy efficiency regulation is proposed in several instances as a means to reduce emissions.
Let's consider buildings, industry, power stations and light bulbs followed by cars, in a special section.
As has already been seen, that doesn't apply.
Construction/lease cost (likely higher) versus running costs (lower) along with any construction feature differences, such as sealed buildings.
Emission-free energy supply might in some cases also be be from local solar, wind or geothermal sources.
As with all other industrial cost factors, efficiency is stimulated by making sure there is adequate competition, from national or international industry.
Competition is here all about the effective and neutral management of grids withopen access for other electricity suppliers: more.
Notice that this can also achieves emission reduction on a grander scale, since the competition can come from actual suppliers of emission-free energy.
politicians the world over exclaim emphatically.
This illustrates the difference between Acceptance and Visionary politics, as described in the overall introduction.
Emissions themselves can be dealt with in several ways, and should be the focus of attention.
For more, see the specific section dealing with light bulbs.
This involves getting cash for fuel inefficient cars in buying efficient ones, and was extended in early August 2009.
Dealers are forced to destroy perfectly good cars.
Also the considerable energy involved in the manufacturing stages of new cars has been ignored, compared to the maintenance of older cars (look at how Cuba does it!).
Fuel efficiency is of course an advantage people can consider when buying a car - and can compare with advantages that inefficient cars can have (better acceleration from greater energy use, or greater safety because of greater weight, etc, as well as a probably lower price - or they would be efficient already).
A fuel-neutral emission tax on cars therefore makes more sense:
If it is economical to make - or to fit current- gas-guzzling cars with emission processing then, again, there is no reason for government to try to lower the use of such cars.
(Regardless of whether CO2 reduction makes any sense, lowered emissions can of course have their own benefit, for all the noxious sulphur etc substances that the emissions also contain) ]
A company that went bankrupt.
Why?
Because they didn't make fuel efficient cars?
No, because they didn't satisfy consumer demand - which amongst other things happened to be for fuel efficient cars.
General Motors, like any other private company, thrives by satisfying consumer demand not Obama demand.
Efficiency regulation seriously and unnecessarily affects what cars can be made to satisfy consumer demand, since for example performance and safety (car weight) are related to efficiency for a given car.
Certainly.
But that's about emission reduction - not energy efficiency.
If oil prices rise, consumers want energy efficient cars anyway, there's no need to legislate for it.
As for emissions, energy efficiency is related to emission reduction, but they are not the same.
Basically that any oil shortage gives rising oil cost and lowers its use anyway, with people seeking out efficient cars without having to be forced to do it (more).
Instead of worrying about automobile oil use and trying to string it out by energy efficiency regulation, alternative electric/hydrogen/biofuel or other propulsion energy sources could be encouraged.
Surely regulation on cars that reduces emissions is as relevant as regulation that does the same with power stations, as already recommended?
Yes and no.
Given on one hand the vested interest to keep combustion engine cars going, and on the other hand the increasing pressure to reduce emissions, it is not surprising that practical solutions have started to crop up.
An example is the Georgia Tech, Atlanta research in the USA.
This involves a process where carbon is filtered out and deposited at refilling stations, for later storage such as burial.
Notice how energy efficiency regulation does not take such possibilities into account, unnecessarily hampering oil and combustion engine car industries.
Emission reduction legislation should be neutral legislation: It should be irrelevant what fuel is used, as long as emission targets are met.
Because cars are not only energy consuming generators of power (like power stations), they are also appliances. Emission regulation on cars would in practice be similar to efficiency regulation with all the mentioned similar disadvantages, such as in the variety of cars available.
One reason is that political intervention should be where emissions are caused, in that case power stations.
Another reason is the unfairness of targeting appliances that don't themselves cause emissions, since emission-free users are hit.
Political intervention - by regulation or taxation - here directly affects the source of emissions
Regulation isn't justified. What about taxation?
Compare with the light bulb taxation section.
Energy efficiency regulation is unprecedented in that it bans products that are safe to use, and electrical products don't give out any emissions.
The less emissions the better of course, but their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are not poisonous. CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere (and that is why terms like "pollution" or "clean" emissions are strictly speaking wrong in relation to emissions of CO2).
What we are really dealing with are bans for consumption - not personal safety - reasons.
In other words, fewer cars with high emission levels would be bought.
2. High emission car purchases can be drastically lowered, as with bans, with a high enough taxation.
3. Governments gain direct income from taxation unlike with bans, income that can be used to further lower car emissions (via for example hydrogen/electric car project subsidies, carbon removal research funding), in turn lowering emissions more than any remaining high emission car use causes them.
4. There is also the simplicity of taxation, compared to working out complicated car phase-outs and replacements.
5. Taxation is also easily adjusted to give the mix of government income and purchase reduction required.
Note that taxation can also be reduced on low-emission cars, making them cheaper than today, in compensation for tax rises on high emission cars - important in "selling the idea" to the people (see below).
6. Car taxation is also easily adaptable to new conditions and new cars on the market.
7. Taxation can be relinquished if and when no longer needed, for example from high emission type cars having carbon capture systems installed either in construction or by retrofit to existing models.
Compare with car efficiency legislation that is lifted when no longer judged to be needed: Manufacturing of the high performance and/or heavy cars affected is hard to start up again.
Politicians anywhere are afraid to apply it, but it can't be too hard for either politicians to communicate, or consumers to understand, that
• a ban on an inefficient product is different from a tax on it,
• noone is forcing anyone to buy the taxed product,
• some cars can become cheaper than today, others more expensive, particularly if done as a pure emission reduction policy that is not looking for any net government income.
The consequence of this is that -unlike with say sulphur or mercury emissions- there is no local benefit in reducing the gases.
The whole world has to be involved at a massive cost.
A few countries lowering emissions are likely to be wasting time, money and effort doing so.
See Wikipedia's good illustrated carbon cycle explanation, involving man and nature.
Also, CDIAC (the US Government's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) has extensive information.
The US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has a special emission section, see the good overview there of human causes of CO2 emissions.
• the methane release of rice cultivation and from livestock,
• the nitrous oxide release from fertilizers,
• the CO2 release and re-uptake failure, from the clearing of forests and from harvesting.
The fact that plants bind carbon in photosynthesis, using the sun's energy, makes them effective if temporary "carbon sinks", temporary because of the CO2 release when they decompose after death. Thereby the problems with cutting down forests, especially when they are not replaced, and also with harvesting.
The decomposition release problem of harvesting has for example seen the suggestion by scientist James Lovelock (more) to burn off the plant waste in controlled conditions to produce charcoal, that won't re-release carbon gas.
There are obviously many other measures applicable to deal with agricultural and other land released emissions, the main focus being on the preservation of forests: According to the IPCC, tropical deforestation is responsible for approximately 20% of world greenhouse gas emissions.
Of all the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, while one quarter is taken up by land plants, another quarter is taken up directly by dissolving in the oceans and by the uptake of their plankton and other plants.
Good for more on the ocean carbon cycle: Harvard magazine article, also a more recent Economist article.
To understand how wrong current policies are, let's first go back to the examples of efficiency regulation on household electrical products and cars, turning them around to be emission-based policies instead.
In the following: Emissions policies, including comparison of carbon taxation forms with cap and trade and direct regulation policies, with particular focus on current USA legislation proposals relating to energy and cars.
Electric Politics in an Electric World
For example in the heating and cooling of buildings, where local solar/wind/geothermal energy may sometimes provide the heating, cooling or other requirements, but to achieve widespread emission-free energy supply for such uses, grid electricity will play a key role.
Also, electric cars will need recharging, again usually from grid electricity.
• carbon capture and storage of existing fossil fuel sources, reducing if not eliminating emissions: more
• the generation of renewable/nuclear electricity that is essentially free of emissions: more
• and the efficient spread of such electricity to hitherto fossil fuel dependent areas, especially if carbon capture and storage is not deemed viable or quick enough there:more
A better way forward is in the long term planning associated with the 2050 CO2 targets, such that loan or equity financed cost of changeovers could be recuperated by a slow payback from customers, with little effect on the price they are charged.
For more on funding, see the summary above and the consumption section below.
Carbon Taxation: Fuel Tax and Emission Tax
Tax the emission-causing fuel coming in, and/or tax the emissions coming out.
Emission causing hydrocarbon (oil/coal/gas) fuel can be taxed.
The object is obviously to reduce consumption of these fuels.
However while they might be considered for taxation on energy supply grounds, or simply to raise government income for other purposes, taxation should not be done to reduce emissions. The reason is that it assumes that the emission problems of hydrocarbon fuels can't be dealt with. But, with various carbon capture and storage solutions, they obviously can. In other words it's not taxation neutral as regards emissions.
Emission taxation might then seem more logical, being directly related to emissions caused. After all that's what was recommended for cars. However, the difference with cars is that, being appliances, they offer usage advantages that are lost wheninefficient types are excluded through regulation. There are no such caveats holding back regulation measures on industry.
Emission taxes can't take into account both emission levels and fuel price, and fuel taxes should not be applied here for reasons given.
Power stations are by far the major American (and worldwide) industrial CO2 emitters.
Power companies often have a captive customer base through owning or dominating the grid distribution to them. That means they can just pass on the tax cost to their customers.
Most countries with dominating suppliers (like the USA) use state regulators that watch over prices, but obviously they too have to accept that taxes - or emission reduction measures - are going to raise prices in those grids. The current role of regulators is not in forcing compliance in emission reduction or other company activities.
What is the aim of all this?
To lower emissions.
Regulators - or other monitoring authorities - could of course see that this actually takes place.
Taxation - and indeed Cap and Trade as follows - are roundabout measures that don't necessarily achieve that aim, since companies have ways of getting round them.
Market Reduction of CO2: Cap and Trade - or Not?
It's like a game of musical chairs: Allowances disappearing like the chairs.
The operating principle is that this achieves gradual emission reduction at the lowest possible cost, by the fact that those who find it cheaper to invest in emission reduction will do so, rather than buy an allowance at the current price.
The increasing squeeze is held to be an advantage against taxation, forcing compliance to reduce emissions.
However, the various forms of carbon taxation (on fuel, emissions, or electricity) can of course gradually be increased too, and again those who find it cheaper to reduce emissions will do so. Moreover, unlike any Cap and Trade that involves free handouts, the government gets fiscal income that can presumably also be used for emission reducing projects.
That said, companies involved don't actually have to reduce their emissions either with taxation or with Cap and Trade.
This in turn means they differ in their ability to reduce emissions.
Recognizing the problem for say cement or steel manufacturers to reduce their own emissions, the concept of offsets was introduced, and is applied in the Kyoto agreement, in EU legislation, and in the Waxman-Markey Energy Bill.
Some of the offset types are listed here.
The plantation of trees, usually in tropical areas vulnerable to deforestation, is a major offset project, even giving rise to its own proposed market in forest credits.
See the emission introduction:
The value of trees is that they store carbon, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to do so.
There is disagreement on just how many trees need to be planted - and how many worldwide companies can be allowed to use such planting equivalents (the need for global consensus with cap and trade schemes is greater than for other emission reduction policies and will be seen to be a recurring problem).
There is a further problem with fast growing trees, that tend to have shorter lives and so die and decompose quicker, releasing their stored carbon back into the atmosphere.
But rewarding dubious outfits who otherwise threaten to cut down trees has its own ethical problems. As the Economist magazine puts it, it's "relying on efficient, accountable governance in rainforest countries, where the prospect of a new multibillion-dollar market in forest credits is already causing a stir".
What then is the current state of affairs in worldwide negotiation ahead of Copenhagen (June 2009)?
That developed nations will have caps - other nations won't.
A key nation is China, but regulation there would still leave many others.
Ironically, a product licenced to be cheaply made in China is likely to have fargreater coal power carbon emissions associated with it than if made locally, on top of the inter-continental transport emissions involved (and is particularly ironic with products like fluorescent lights, since these also use up much greater energy in manufacture than the simple light bulbs up for banning, and also involve recycling emissions).
Local jobs in manufacturing are of course also hit.
An obvious problem for (remaining) local manufacturers is if a company, say a US steelmaker, is burdened with cap and trade - or any other emission reduction scheme - while a competing foreign company is not.
The response of unilaterally slapping on import duties gives rise to trade (and diplomatic) tension.
From the outset, allowance trading is unavoidably unfair.
Why?
This is not a real market.
There is no market incentive to reduce carbon emissions, so that direct political intervention is needed, if rising CO2 is to be taken as a serious problem.
The creation of an artifical market is as problematic as it sounds, and breaksessence principles in being similar to trying to run public services as private companies or using private companies for public service obligations.
All that can be defined and run as discrete competing entities is suitable for the private sphere.
This necessitates the desired outcome to be easily quantified and measurable.
That is why say garbage collection, with pre-contract bidding, can be run privately, while the privatisation of all health care presents problems in that the service is harder to define and measure.
Competition between emission-reduction companies to collect CO2, not just from company chimneys, but out of the general atmosphere too - and that might improve on say the plantation of trees.
The direct competition between emitting companies to avoid lowering CO2 by buying allowances or use the other escapes described!
The stability of any sequestered carbon could be taken into account, so that it doesn't easily reconvert to CO2, and any necessity of storage is also taken into consideration, though that could be publically funded to be in some unique location (disused mine etc) in a state or federation.
What is the actual Problem here, and how is it solved?
Instead, in the US as worldwide, politicians and their advisers just sit and haggle over how to make Cap and Trade (un-)workable.
Where's the vision to think differently?
Let's continue.
However, with Cap and Trade schemes it is compounded by trying to establish the fair distribution and trading of allowances.
Auctions are really a form of Carbon Tax, and was here supposed to give federal funding for renewable energy projects, home energy/insulation schemes and the like.
For example, a coal power company with its own grid, or other industries with limited competition, can potentially just pass on both initial and trading cost of allowances to those customers, while companies that face competition have to be run more efficiently and have no such luxuries, thereby being unfairly outbid.
Who is deemed worthy of such political favours - and on what grounds?
The current amended US Bill (June 2009) now includes free handouts to electricity distributors.
More here. The idea is to allow electricity prices to be kept low, but that is of course just allowing their continued emissions and pushing the problem forwards.
No gain, no pain: Oil companies and other industry are squeezed instead, so they are the ones that will pass on their cost to consumers.
Some companies may already have reduced emissions, for example by operating more efficiently, others not.
So in one sense such a company should not be unfairly by-passed in favour of companies that have done nothing, making its future operation unnecessarily more difficult, if it still has some emissions.
On the other hand a relatively emission-free company can get an allowance it doesn't need, and pocket money from trading it, that it doesn't need:
Money that the emitting company buying the allowance could simply have spent directly on its own emission reduction.
The principle was stated that reduction is achieved at the lowest possible cost to society, by the fact that those who find it cheaper to invest in emission reduction will do so, rather than buy an allowance at a given price.
The problem is that this is only true, if at all, for basic Cap and Trade, without offsets, and with companies that are facing equal competition.
To some extent it mirrors the mentioned problems with auctioning off allowances. Efficently run industries with strong competiton go bankrupt (or evade the system with offsets), while inefficently run companies with no competiton can happily pay up and pass on costs to consumers.
But how likely is that, given a state's captive grid customers - and their votes?
Already in the allowance handouts coal power stations are given free passes - and the 2050 deadline is a long way away.
More later about effective grid organization.
What companies need - not least utility companies - is stability looking forward, given the big investment costs involved in energy production and delivery.
The certainty is there alright, but only in the overall Cap, the allowance total allowed, and its gradual reduction.
Individual allowance cost and availability - already unpredictabile in basic Cap and Trade schemes - only increases with all the offsets on offer with such carbon emission trading.
However, the measures involved including the involvement of financial institutions and others trading - or speculating- in allowances, that can have the opposite effect according to David Sokol, Chairman of MidAmerican Energy, in an extensive criticism of Cap and Trade (article).
However, what nearly always comes across is that people can recognize expenses that have to be faced, in the common interest - they just want to be treated fairly and their money to be used efficiently, with David Sokol here accepting the Cap - the limitation of emissions - but not the Trade part of Cap and Trade.
There is a double expense for companies involved in emission reduction, as David Sokol also points out. Companies are paying for allowances now, as well as for emission reduction sometime before 2050. Of course, companies lowering emissions pay correspondingly less for any remaining allowances needed, but it is still an extra expense.
We calculate that our 2012 allowance shortfall will be nearly 50% - not 10%. This represents 32.4 million allowances which, at $25 per allowance, would cost our customers over $800 million. That would essentially create a tax of between 12% and 28% in our states. That's just for the first year - and at a very conservative estimate of $25 per allowance; some predict market prices two to four times higher.
As the cap tightens and auctions increasingly replace free allocations, annual compliance costs will run into the tens of billions of dollars. Attachments 1 and 2 to my testimony demonstrate this shortfall going out to 2050."
Perhaps precisely because of all the wheeling and dealing involved, which seems to be the guts of politics.
Most of the replies I receive from Congressmen highlight how they "achieved this for Kansas" or "achieved that for Kentucky" (not necessarily those regions) by sticking on some addendum to the proposal.
Talk about adding lipstick on a pig.
As said earlier, where's the focus on actually dealing with emissions - accepting they have to be dealt with - rather than on how to avoid dealing with them?
Where's the will to speak out against the whole rationale of the Waxman-Markey Bill, or indeed the preparatory Copenhagen negotiations, and to make the point that the emissions question could be handled entirely differently and indeed directly?
Not Dealing with Energy and Emission Problems
How Efficiency Regulation on Electrical Products is Wrong
Example: The Light Bulb
For the sake of simple discourse,
Light bulbs = Ordinary incandescent household lights
CFLs = Compact Fluorescent "energy saving" Lights
Emissions = Greenhouse gas emissions, mainly carbon emissions in the form of CO2, carbon dioxide
Emission-free energy = Nuclear energy, or renewable energy such as solar / wind / wave / tidal / hydro
Summary: Why a Light Bulb Ban is Wrong - from Every Perspective.
It's a strange world that would favour the ban of the simple safe versatile cheap quick responding bright broad-spectrum light bulb, whatever the advantages ofcomplex multimodular white light LED lamps, or of complex mercury-containingfluorescent lights, or indeed of any temporarily allowed related halogen lights, with their nonetheless different light quality.
All efficiency regulation electrical product bans are unfair on emission-free energy users, who will steadily increase in numbers, and are prevented from buying products they obviously want to use.
Consumers - not politicians - pay for electricity and any power stations needed, just like they pay for factories and shops supplying other goods they need.
We can deal positively with energy supply and any emission criteria that needs to be put on it - and we can take the negative cut down and save route, the ultimate logic of which is to go and live in caves and use candles. That would save "billions of dollars/euros" of lighting and other expenditure and "megatons of gas". As long as we don't bring any cows with us.
Around 9 out of 10 times consumers in the EU, USA, and elsewhere, prefer to buy ordinary light bulbs.
What would be the "great savings" for politicians if they were banning a product that their citizens don't want to buy?
Certainly light bulbs are cheap - no crime- but people don't keep buying a productjust because it's cheap.
Ordinary light bulbs have a wide appeal because of appearance, a broad spectrum light quality, versatility with dimmers and auto-switches, a brightness also in small sizes, and other reasons as described.
In fact, most EU and US households have bought a few such lights, and obviously don't like them enough to buy more.
If such lights improve, imaginative advertising - like for expensive but long lasting batteries or washing up liquids - can emphasize the fact on the market place, rather than politicians forcing people to buy such lights, applauding the "big savings favour" that they show to consumers.
Why not ban half of what's in the shops, and make shopping days really easy?
No point, since people will then actually want to buy such lights, marginalizing light bulbs, just like transistors once marginalized the energy guzzling radio tube.
If new LED lamps are not good, then again obviously no point in banning the ordinary light bulbs that people still want to use.
Even if it was held that light bulbs must be targeted - for example, to maximize a quick reduction in emissions - then taxation would be much more advantageous than bans, for government, for citizens - and for the environment.
The cheapness and relatively short 1000 hour life of 4 billion light bulbs in the USA, and 4 billion light bulbs in the EU, would yield massive billion dollar government revenues - yet lower sales at the same time, while keeping consumer choice.
The government income could be used for initiatives that reduces emissions more than any remaining light bulb use causes them (renewable energy projects, home insulation schemes, and so on).
Taxation is still wrong, for similar reasons to bans, but is a simpler alternative, easily adjusted and adapted to new market conditions, and lifted where and when no longer required.
Perhaps it's time for politicians to show a little consideration for citizens and the choices they make, of lighting, as of other products, and to deal directly instead with energy and emission problems.
The USA: efficiency, details (pdf), energy star info
Congress Bill (2009 House Bill from pages 192 + 382, basically the same rules, some special outdoor, portable, artworks (p400) and other additions)
Canada: efficiency, lighting, details
Australia: efficiency, lighting, summary, details (pdf)
But a lot of the politics applies also to the USA, Canada, Australia:
The same strange political rationale, similar political pathways - for example with lighting baked into and hidden in larger "Cap and Trade" agreements, as in the EU December 2008, and the USA June 2009 (The Energy and Climate Bill).
The industrial politics is similar as well, notice how major manufacturers in for example the USA go along with the ban. It is perhaps less surprising, on the face of it, that the new USA energy secretary Steven Chu is also in favour of the compact fluorescent light... after all his lab developed it, as he points out.
In normal parliaments, following scrutiny by a parliamentary committee, decisions are debated and voted on in the Parliament.
What has been the route of the light bulb ban?
Drawn up by the European Commission Ecodesign committee as an energyefficiency measure, launched by the European Commissioner for Energy as anenergy efficiency measure, you might think it would be debated by the Parliamentary committee dealing with energy, as an energy efficiency measure.
Wrong! It turns out there might actually be some criticism in that case!
Why?
One reason is the industrial politics involved
(the EU parliamentary story continues after the following paragraphs!)
there is the political payback involved:
Politicians have secured the cooperation of manufacturers and distributors to deliver large quantities of CFLs on the marketplace.
The small problem: Noone wants to buy them.
As the EU politicians say: "The market has failed. We must therefore phase out incandescent lights".
It is time to let manufacturers recoup on their politically pushed investments.
Look at the above linked documentation.
If this was - as some politicians try to say - purely about efficiency, then frostedlights would hardly specifically be banned.
They can be marginally less bright, but not necessarily so, and in memos to European Parliament Committee members the view is clearly stated that in the case of frosted/white lights, since they look more similar to CFLs than transparent lights do, there is no need to retain them on the marketplace.
Not only that, but virtually all halogen lights, related to ordinary lights but more efficient, will be banned too (except for a specialized transformer type, that is not a household replacement type). Again, with frosted halogen lights being immediately banned.
In Northern Europe - where most lights are sold, and usage is also greatest, it is an overwhelming popularity.
(Notice that any justification of immediately banning all frosted lights on the basis of inefficiency, would show the EU in just a bad a light, as it were:
Frosted lights being marginally if at all (0-5%) less bright, based on coating used,
which can be compared with their great popularity among the population.
While such lights would of course eventually be banned anyway, that comes back to the availability of LED or perhaps more efficient incandescents with a delayed ban, at no real disadvantage in the meantime in terms of any energy use or emissions).
In the UK, the short-lived rebellion in January 2009 that threatened, was quelled by such specific ministerial statements, in the press, and to members of the House of Commons and House of Lords.
for manufacturers, there is the double profits whammy:
Everyone buys CFLs, in current development phase and with no real marketalternatives that would give competition to improve quality and/or a lower price. Remember that the main product competitor (9/10 of sales) is removed, and within CFL manufacturing there are far fewer competitors.
A further reason for not improving CFLs is that consumers in a few years will then replace CFLs with the promising LED lights - and are happy to do so, again filling the pockets of lighting manufacturing directors. Why should they sell good long-lasting CFLs at a low price and lose profitable turnover?
There are therefore large profits on the horizon for European companies and their associates, as EU consumers are forced to buy their expensive lights (as well as new lamps and fittings as the case may be) in the lack of credible alternatives.
Easy and cheap to manufacture, so more manufacturers, more competition, less profits = less fun.
This is no secret, and indeed Martin Goetzeler, CEO of OSRAM has pointed out how the manufacture and sale of incandescent lamps have become less and less important for their business.
So the European Commission and leading manufacturers together deliver an energy and environmental spiel that avoids any overall perspective or documentary evidence (the arm-waving "let's all save the energy of Romania" kind of thing), and hey presto, doubting politicians fall into line.
Easy choice to make, particularly in the EU which still has no formally set legislative review procedures, a legislative review which is still therefore manipulated as desired by the controlling powers, beautifully illustrated here...
Even this was not enough, all debate avenues had to be stopped! So the Environment Committee was "invited to decide" if it wanted to be the last instance of discussion.
"write a letter voicing his objections so his own name could be cleared such that it would be put on the record what he thought of EU parliamentary procedure",
which he duly consented to do, to the relief of everyone else.
Interestingly, even in the Environment Committee there seems to have been some second thoughts, because a motion was launched a couple of weeks later, seeking to actually have a debate in Parliament after all, and while 44 members voted against, 14 members did vote for, (with 1 abstention), quite a surprise in the circumstances.
Of course, that's not an excuse not to (at least) follow normal democratic procedure of having parliament vote on it, as with other parliaments.
What are MEPs there for?
Moreover, the mentioned previous discussion was the year before on a light bulb ban in general, not on a specific proposal: a proposal more extensive than for comparable jurisdictions, in not allowing several choices and alternatives, a ban not just based on efficiency like other bans around the world.
Another reason for a general debate in Parliament would be that it's an issue that affects everyone and that everyone can understand - not being like a debate on some esoteric industry matter affecting only a few. ]
They are bans on safe products, we are not talking about banning lead paint or fireworks here.
In fact, light bulbs have been safely used for over 100 years without significant problems, unlike other lights.
The irony is that a normal ban would rather be on the main suggested replacement, compact fluorescent "energy saving" lights (CFLs), with several health and environmental concerns.
Banning a type of car stops emissions. Banning a type of light does not.
Cars are taxed on related carbon efficiency.
Lights -and electrical products- can be taxed on related carbon efficiency (although still wrong in principle, since energy and emission problems can and should be dealt with directly).
"Hey isn't it great to get rid of old technology" we are told.
"Light bulbs are over 100 years old, time to get rid of them."
Now, radio valve use faded away because everyone could see the advantages of transistors.
Did that mean banning radio valves?
No Sir, they are still around, a limited demand for a limited use, but nonethelessavailable for those who want them.
Yet, since they use much more energy than transistors, they could conceivably have been banned to save energy too.
Now, everyone is talking about how great LED lights will be. And why not - perhaps people will actually want to buy them!
You don't have to be Einstein - or Edison - to know what that could mean. If people mostly buy LED lights, and fewer ordinary light bulbs, then energy use (supposedly) drops dramatically, and no ban is needed.
A natural market process, which nevertheless allows those who like light bulbs to continue to use them.
If ordinary light bulbs remain more popular than LED or any other lighting - why ban what people obviously want to use?
Let's expand on that....
The word from EU officials is
"The campaigns have failed, Europeans still choose to buy these lights, legislationis the next logical step"
Instead of saying
"The campaigns have failed, Europeans still choose to buy these lights, how can werespect this strong will of the people?
Is it really necessary to ban these bulbs?"
They are the lights that people want to buy (9 times out of 10 in the EU, according to the European Commission's own research 2007-8, 19 out of 20 in the USA from lighting industry data in the same period).
Just 18% of adults think it's the government's job to tell Americans what kind of light bulb they use, according to a July 2009 Rasmussen Reports national telephonesurvey. 72% say it's none of the government's business, and 10% are not sure.
The music was then rather different.
As the Cambridge Network science organization point out:
A study by VITO consultants showed the following breakdown of lamp use in European homes in 2007:
• 54% incandescent (down from 85% in 1995 and still decreasing)
• 18% low-voltage halogen (and increasing)
• 5% mains-voltage halogen (and growing)
• 8% linear fluorescent
• 15% CFL
Of course the story was then "how Europeans are taking to these lamps", and that the "reports that they don't like them" are "unfounded"!
"If we assume that all remaining filament bulbs are replaced by CFL at some point in the future (unlikely, as use of halogen bulbs is likely to increase), that these bulbs are used to the same extent as those they replace and that the energy reduction per bulb is 80%, the total reduction in EU energy use would be 0.54 x 0.8 x 0.76% = 0.33%. This figure is almost certainly an overestimate, particularly as the inefficiency of conventional bulbs generates heat which supplements other forms of heating in winter. Which begs the question: is it really worth it?"
Besides, if people like halogens, then that door must - and will - be shut too, as laid out in the December 2008 EU banning documentation linked above. Remember: Soviet Union, not European Union.
Certainly they are cheap -no crime- but you don't keep buying something only because it is cheap, and attractive features of light bulbs will soon be given.
Otherwise no expensive alternative products anywhere would ever be bought.
In normal advertising manufacturers themselves highlight advantageous features of their products.
Think of long-lasting batteries and Energizer bunnies, think of washing up liquids that wash piles of dishes.
"Expensive to buy but last long":
CFL/LED manufacturers wrongly rely on public campaigns and bans to make sales.
So, when politicians say "a ban is the only way" for the public to buy an expensive product that "people will find very attractive when they do buy it", advertising by manufacturers could highlight that, and people would buy one and then buy more if they are so good, as with the other products.
So maybe they feel that is enough:
There is no reason just to use CFLs -or light bulbs- in a house, all lights have their own advantages and different uses (see below).
Of course, the other explanation is that maybe people simply don't like CFLs, having tried them...
Certainly CFLs can improve, but it hardly justifies banning bulbs now, and hardly justifies it later either:
if people actually like improved CFLs or LEDs and buy them in greater numbers, there is again no need to ban ordinary light bulbs, as explained above.
This is the biggest loss, in banning "incandescent" lights (=ordinary light bulbs and halogens).
Incandescent lights have a smooth broad light spectrum, which in ordinary light bulbs rises more towards the red end, giving the characteristic warm glow (fluorescent and LED lights give out a very different types of light, more below).
Their heat can be useful (see next section) also in space heating applications, preventing frozen pipes and the like.
In the form of cheap, small, bright, colourful lights they are also useful as Christmaslights and other ornamentation.
Transparency, shape and appearance makes their use in some lamps, lanterns, and chandeliers attractive.
For displays and in some home decorating schemes, designers use the sparkleeffect that one can get with the point source incandescent lighting.
Also the beam can be focused, by lamp shades in reading lamps for example.
Small bright incandescent lights are particularly useful, since small CFL or LED lamps technically can't be made as bright, and the bright types that can be made are particularly expensive.
In temperate or cooler climates (most of the USA, nearly all of Europe, all of Canada, and the greater part of the industialized world), light bulb heat benefit far outweighs its detriment in working against air conditioning cooling. When it is dark and lights get turned on, the overwhelming requirement is heating, not cooling.
Now, noone is going to use light bulbs to heat a room. However, that does not mean ignoring any additional effects of such lighting - good or bad.
Research example "Interactions Between Lighting and Space Conditioning Energy Use in U.S. Commercial Buildings" (Osman Sezgen and Jonathan G. Koomey,Berkeley National Laboratory University of California).
Also, an easily understandable general overview is the USA Government Energy Star building lighting information.
Again, in say Germany, there is extensive research into the secondary heating effect of electrical appliances -including light bulbs - regarding building construction with regard to energy and insulation. These often rely on efficiency measurements by institutes like the ECPE in Nuremberg.
There can be no doubt that government departments can take account of data that is right under their noses (often by colleagues from the same or neighbouring departments!).
We have the irony that some official information not only knows about but has measured light bulb heat, and might call it a "significant problem" when cooling is required, while the other crowd say "there is no heating effect" and take no account of it in lighting efficiency measurements!
From my research, not a single EU "replace your lights and save X in money" campaign takes heating effect into account.
Readers can draw their own conclusions why they do not do this.
Nevertheless, research in a number of institutions has shown why this is so.
The UK Government Market Transformation Programme research in the early years of this century held that the energy provided by ordinary light bulbs as heat contributes significantly to the domestic environment so the actual energy use savings by changing to CFLs are only somewhere between 17% and 33% of the quoted amount (yes, seemingly ignored or forgotten by the Government).
Similarly, from more recent 2008-2009 findings by The Canadian National Research Council, Manitoba Hydro, and the University of Manitoba Physics Department, the heat benefit of light bulbs means that the the gross 67% savings quoted of switching to CFLs, turn out to be net energy savings of 17%.
Also the Heat Replacement Study (Bruce Young, John Henderson of Building Research Establishment, UK 2003-6) found that around half of the light bulb heat contributed usefully in heating. Of course the results of this kind of research depends on several factors, such as lamp enclosure of the light bulb, room insulation, the size of a room and the length of time it is used: a lot of light bulb heat waste is not because they are poor heaters for their size (more below), but because they are not used long enough. Canadian and Swedish research have similar or higher benefit findings. Buildings in say the UK need less heat and so light bulb heat is proportionately a greater part of the room heating needed. On the other hand, buildings in colder countries are usually better insulated, so less heat is lost, such as light bulb heat through the ceiling.
Professor Bryan Karney, Graduate student Kevin Waher, and Energy Scientist Michael Ivanco (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto 2007).
This paper also goes into the relevance of bans in emission-free versus emission causing states
(hydropower-rich Manitoba and Quebec is compared with fossil fuel powered Alberta).
An announcement by Environment Minister Baird was made in 2007 to phase out light bulbs starting 2012.
The research findings meant a reevaluation, and in December 2008 following concerns a Federal investigation into the safety of CFLs has been launched, preliminary findings expected autumn 2009.
Of course, politicians do not necessarily listen to scientific advice anyway!
You can see it for yourself.
It's not really a light bulb that wastes energy as heat.
It's really a cheap heat bulb that "wastes" energy as light: 95% heat, 5% light
(still, the wasted light can be useful too!).
The more right the opponents of light bulbs are, the more wrong they are.
[Also: When such percentages are presented by ban proponents, none of them point out that fluorescent lights and indeed LED lamps are also not so efficient in percentage terms, with, roughly speaking, CFLs at around 20% efficiency and LEDs at 30%, versus the 5% of ordinary incandescent light bulbs.
This in turn affects calculations presented that keep assuming 100% efficiency of the "energy saving" CFLs.
More: CFLs internalize rather than externalize the heat. In other words, the CFL heat waste stays within the glass enclosure and poses a fire risk, particularly for CFLs fitted in enclosed or recessed lamp fixtures, or as replacements in ordinary dimmer circuits etc: more]
Go to any heater:
Put one of your hands high above it (as high as you can), and the other the same distance in front.
This will show you how nearly all heat rises towards the ceiling (it's called "convection") and then spreads downwards from there.
Also: Rooms often have light bulbs that are lower down.
Next: Put twenty 100W light bulbs (=2kW, or near enough at 95% heat output) beside a 2kW heater of your choice. Light up, turn on, tune in.
If you actually do this, you understand the effect a single 100W bulb has, in relation to the energy it uses.
Pretty "hot" after all, our little light bulb.
Also: Rooms often have several light bulbs.
Therefore ridiculous arguments like "well I don't want to heat my room with light bulbs" do not apply.
One might here note that, while few countries have actually as yet implemented light bulb bans, ones that have (Brazil/Venezuela/Cuba) have mostly cited air conditioning as a reason, which of course again points to a heat benefit in colder European and other climates.
It is wrong to ban light bulbs anywhere, consumers can be informed and then decide themselves what lighting they want to use and when, they can of course also switch between lights if they wish. Money is not the only reason for using a certain light given the light quality and other advantages of different types of lighting, as already described.
To look at light efficiency alone is not to consider the whole situation.
When light bulb heat is welcome, it is not an energy waste, and often when it's dark, heat is welcome.
That's not all:
From what was said, 100 Watt light bulbs can be called "95 Watt heaters", given the 95% heat output, and similarly with other bulbs.
The savings from such household bulb heaters are indeed small on most heating bills.
The savings are not small, when compared to the size of the lighting bill:
And "lighting bill savings" from "heat waste" are a fundamental reason for a ban.
Such bulbs have especially good brightness as well as heat benefit,
with 100W bulbs also being at the same low price as other bulbs.
bright lights are more expensive than other ones,
fluorescent lights dim with age,
encapsulation (with pear shaped outer envelope, recommended for close use)reduces brightness.
Cheap Chinese imports for rebranding, keeping down prices, also means thatbrightness retention, lifespan and other issues remain with these lights.
Brightness is also expensive, with 40W equivalent LEDs at 50 US dollars and 60W replacements at 120 dollars, July 2009.
LED replacement lights are also more directional than incandescent or fluorescent lights, and capping systems to spread the light again reduces the brightness.
Maybe that money focus is why the campaigns failed.
It's like saying "Eat only bananas and save lots of money!"
You can't just "replace" lights with one another.
have already been looked at extensively in the preceding sections.
The main point to be made is that the focus solely on their inefficiency is wrong, given all other advantages that people may find in them.
As regards inefficiency, the ordinary bulbs are typically judged as being around 5% light efficient with a 1000 hour lifespan.
In light of the banning decisions in several countries and the continuing impopularity of fluorescent alternatives, there is a new commercial interest in achieving higher efficiency incandescents, that might also improve on halogens as described below.
However, a welcome development in itself of such efficient alternatives does not mean having to ban the ordinary more inefficient light bulb, which may retain appearance, transparence, light quality, size and other advantages as well as a low price, compared to such newer types.
are as incandescent lights related to ordinary light bulbs, and most are up for banning too. They are slightly (10-20%) more light efficient and often last 2-3x longer than ordinary light bulbs. Efficiency and lifespan tend to be trade-offs however, so that maximal efficiency and lifespan don't go together.
Since halogens can be made small they can look good in recessed and other special situations, though they also cost more, need more handling care (also due to their heat), usually look very different, and may need transformers and differentfittings as well as still having a different, whiter, light spectrum quality.
show promise and might make interior lighting radically different in form (morebelow).
They are particularly noted for lifespan and light efficiency advantages: Typically lasting lasting 50 000 hours or more and 30% light efficient (compared to around 5% for ordinary light bulbs).
However, that is a focused, directional light efficiency:
They are much less efficient when required to reproduce, or to try to reproduce, the all-around spread of light like from ordinary light bulbs, as shown when bulb capping or other light spreading attempts are used.
In turn, this also unfortunately reduces their brightness, which is already a problem to achieve beyond c.60 watt equivalent, for a ceiling-type replacement lamp that spreads light around a room.
Also, they cost much more and give out a different light spectrum:.
Like CFLs, they can be colour temperature adjusted (to produce a warmer, ordinary light bulb type of light):
But like CFLs, that is an approximation rather than a copy of such incandescent light output.
Still different from ordinary light bulbs then.
1. The complex multimodular structure required to produce sufficient (and white or whitish) light
2. The difficulty in achieving bright lights
3. The difficulty in achieving lights that spread the light around well - rather than being directional.
4. The difficulty in achieving such lights at a reasonable price.
Brighter household replacement lights at CFL comparable cost is not expected for at least another 5 years (Professor Colin Humphreys of Cambridge University, who in a July 2009 BBC radio interview also goes into the latest research findings).
One problem is the so-called droop effect. August 2009 article: As the current in LEDs increases in an effort to increase brightness, the brightness suddenly plummets.
compact fluorescent "energy saving" lights, have ionized mercury containing gas that cause the coated walls of tubes to fluoresce, so that light is given out.
CFLs keep improving in design, newer types with electronic ballasts (internal current change devices) unfortunately get confused with older less stable types.
Their light efficiency and long life are again recognized advantages compared to ordinary light bulbs, though not as great as LEDs and not as great in practice as in theory (with typical 20% light efficiency and 6000-8000 hour lifespan ratings) because of the way brightness and lifespan are tested (more below).
Achieving small bright CFLs is a problem since their brightness is proportional to their radiating surface area.
Regarding light quality, there are daylight similarities that can give a preferable light for some, and new gas mixtures and filters on the market can to some extent emulate incandescents.
That said, the colour omissions and colour spikes that remain in the spectrum of all ionized gases, can also make fluorescent lights seem unnatural and/or cold to some, and with an eerie quality when dimmed.
Cold or moist conditions affect CFL operation and lifespan, as does heat, including the heat of enclosing them.
Health and environmental concerns also apply, mainly due to radiation and to mercury content.
That said, let's compare CFLs and ordinary light bulbs, by location.
Relatively frequent use and left on while doing so, and kitchens may not be specifically heated.
Also, the better white balance of fluorescents can make them better in seeing and using food in cooking.
large tube type fluorescent lights are twice as light-efficient as CFLs.
Again, perhaps no ancillary heating, and may be left on a while.
Even modern CFLs are slow to come on in the cold,
porch sensors or auto-switches make light bulbs more suitable,
and porch/garage lights may be switched on and off for short periods only.
wintertime light bulbs, with heat benefit and an appealing "warm glow",
summertime CFLs, with a cooler white light and better light-only efficiency.
Also, light bulb heat works against air conditioning cooling systems.
Even if fittings allow other light types, cheap to buy light bulbs may also work out cheaper per year.
For UV radiation reasons encapsulation is recommended for CFLs in frequent close use which adds to cost and may make fitting more difficult, small sized fittings may necessitate light bulb use anyway.
Moreover, small bright CFLs or LEDs are hard to make, and are unavailable in the brightest types. CFLs dim with age, and can't be focused like point-source ordinary lights can, under a lamp shade. That adds to the reasons why "there never seems enough light" with a CFL (more).
allowing for any special fittings, can often be used instead of light bulbs. However that is obviously no light bulb ban justification, as halogens still have different properties as described already.
are an interesting new development. As mentioned, they usually come in pure colour light combinations to produce white light. Ironically, they might in time by free choice replace both ordinary and fluorescent lights, for some types of lighting.
The sheet form (similar to computer/TV screens) is particularly interesting:
In future houses a whole sheet may cover the ceiling, giving a diffuse variable daylight simulation.
They might also be used on table tops and some floor areas.
As sheets on walls (particularly), different colours (given the colour combined light) could be chosen according to mood, and doubling up as communication screens they could link up to share livingrooms with relatives and friends in other houses, via teleconferencing type broadband communication.
In the UK, Department of the Environment figures give 2.3kg CO2 per litre of petrol, 0.5kg CO2 per kWh electricity.
Now, that's in a country where most power stations give out emissions, only 1/4 is emission-free.
This is very important to remember:
Banning an inefficient car stops emissions.
Banning light bulbs or other electrical products does not.
A decision to ban them (and other products) will mean extensive hoarding, cross-border and perhaps Internet purchases.
In turn, less emission benefit from any banning decision, especially in the first few years.
Not just because of LED and other light development that people might actually want to buy anyway.
Not just because of more and more emission-free households thanks to nuclear and renewable development,
not just because of increasing electricity interconnection that quickly spreads the use of such energy,
but also because of rapidly developing technology to deal with coal, oil and gas emissions themselves.
Think, for example, of Canadian states like hydropower-rich British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec, or of coastal USA, with hydropower/nuclear power being around half of coastal North-West use, and half of some East Coast states (USA power source map).
In the EU, think of France (nuclear mainly) and Sweden (hydropower mainly) where virtually all households already have emission-free electricity. In Finland, Austria, Latvia and Lithuania most households have little or no electricity emission.
-->
Incandescent lights (ordinary light bulbs, halogen lights) come on quickly in the cold, unlike fluorescent "energy saving" lights, and the latter are not suitable for cold outdoor use (garages etc) unless specially made.
For example, the average USA household has around 45 lights (source: Energy Star), Northern and Central European houses have around 30 (source: European Commission).
• Increased variety of conditions where different lights are useful, so a ban on any lighting type is felt more. This also increases the cold condition situations, mentioned above.
For more, see the section of different lights and their uses around the house.
• More rooms and lamps with lights that are not often used - minimizing the supposed usage savings from buying more expensive lights, even more so when non-standard fittings mean that whole new lamps have to be bought too.
in Northern and Central Europe being up to 90% of the lights sold (Philips and Osram data 2009). But frosted lights are first in line for banning in the EU, not really for any inefficiency reasons (they can be as efficient as clear lights), but simply to push the use of CFLs.
• There is a likely year-round reduction of heating bills as described, from heat given off the light bulbs. That is, even in the summer, when it is dark, it may be cold enough to turn on room heating in such locations. In any case heating is used more often than cooling (through air conditioners).
• The house insulation factor: The better built houses that they have are particularly well insulated, which gives a greater light bulb heat benefit compared to more poorly insulated ones elsewhere. The heat from bulbs stays in the room, not escaping through walls and ceiling (room heat rises and spreads downwards from the ceiling, so such a light bulb position is not as meaningless regarding heat effect as it might at first seem, again see the heat section).
Yet another point of irony: Governments are now increasing home insulation schemes to save on heating, at the same time as they are banning bulbs which would help save on heating - particularly in such newly insulated homes!
The idea that banned emission-free households should be happy because theysave money, does not hold either:
Money savings are not.
Otherwise of course half of everything in the supermarkets could be banned, to make our shopping days really easy.
More specifically, a running cost reasoning could for example see cotton trousers/pants being banned too, "cheap to buy but expensive in the long run" compared to woollen trousers.
To begin with, regarding fossil fuel emissions themselves, there are already dramatic emission filtering and processing breakthroughs in Wyoming and California, said to bring up to 90% carbon reduction in Wyoming testing, quite apart from more complete carbon capture and storage initiatives like at Schwarze Pumpe in Germany and Lacq in France (more).
Combinations of filtering/processing/storage solutions can therefore dramatically cut emissions.
Secondly, increasing fossil fuel substitution with renewable/nuclear energy, again greatly reduces emissions.
See the emission scheme description above , and the specific electricity generation and distribution section below.
There is no justification to do consumers "a big savings favour" by stopping them from buying what they want to use, and 9 times out of 10 ordinary light bulbs is the lighting they want.
Let's run down all the consumption factors: Price, Usage, Lifecycle, Switchover...
Any subsidies for conversion to Halogen manufacturing are a hidden extra price factor, to the extent halogen lights temporarily survive.
CFLs, compact fluoresent lights, are not only more expensive to begin with, it is also technically harder to manufacture bright fluorescent lights in a compact format. This means that brighter good quality fluorescent lights cost more than ordinary fluorescent lights (while bright 100W ordinary light bulbs cost the same as 40W bulbs).
Dimmers: Specialized CFLs for dimmers etc cost a lot more.
Encapsulation: Pear shaped fluorescent lights with an outer envelope may look nicer to many, and is recommended for close use, but cost more.
Recycling: Subsidies for recycling fluorescent lights are a hidden extra price factor to the consumer.
On a general note, it is sometimes suggested that if everyone has to buy CFLs or LEDs, it will make them cheaper, on economy of scale.
This is a valid point. However, there are two arguments against that:
• cheap competing light bulbs, keeping down prices overall, have been removed.
• there are fewer manufacturers making complex lighting, again reducing competition.
Manufacturers charge what they can on the marketplace, regardless of the product quantity they deliver.
Competition is what keeps prices down, and of course gives variety of choice for consumers.
More: Cheapness without quality is of questionable value, as regards the controversial mass imports of Chinese lights.
Also see the section above for more on the industrial politics involved in the ban.
The likely extensive hoarding of a cheap popular product (9/10 lights bought in most jurisdictions), as well as cross-border and Internet purchases, reduce anyemission benefit from a banning decision, especially in the first few years.
EU households typically have around 20 light bulbs (Environmental Change Institute and European Commission sources), Northern European and American households many more (over 40 ordinary bulbs in the USA out of about 45 lights in total, US Government Energy Star and lighting industry sources).
Switching to expensive lights that are rarely used does not give the suggested savings, nor does any loss/breakage/malfunction of such lights, which may not fitsmall or unusual lamps anyway.
Light bulb heat is not necessarily wasted energy, it can make them more economical, cutting down on the need for ordinary heating as described. That of course also works against air conditioning in hot weather for the same reason, a North/South Europe split, with local, seasonal and diurnal variations also in the USA, Canada, and Australia for example, though overall in temperate climates the heat benefit is greater.
As always, different lights have different advantages at different times and in different places, and can of course be used as consumers wish, rather than as governments dictate.
Halogens, being incandescent lights, have similarities with ordinary light bulbs, and politicians all over Europe keep trying to placate the CFL criticizers, saying "halogens are still allowed" (when they know -or should know- that all replacement types will actually be banned, the most popular non-glare frosted types with immediate effect autumn 2009).
Ironically, to the extent halogen lighting (in the EU as elsewhere) can be used instead of CFLs, then supposed savings by a CFL switch do not apply, halogens are much closer to ordinary light bulbs in energy use.
For example, the claims made in the official Australia ban documentation don't hold up, for this as well as for many other reasons.
Another way that a switchover saves less (if any) energy, emissions, or money, is through the development of more efficient light bulb alternatives.
As mentioned regarding the industrial politics of the bans, major lighting manufacturers are perfectly happy to see the end of cheap easily made light bulbs with all the competition that involves. Like drug companies without interest in cheap generic drugs, they want to bring out their own patented expensive products and rake in the cash, and of course that's why they exist, they are not charities.
The already mentioned halogen lights are as said basically ordinary light bulbs with halogen gas inside, allowing higher filament temperatures and brighter light output for the same amount of energy.
Various new gases and gas mixtures will be introduced in new lights from Philips, Osram and other manufacturers.
• Professor Guo of the University of Rochester uses lasers to blacken the tungsten filament:
"Our measurements show that the treated filament becomes twice as bright with the same power consumption", says Professor Guo.
More in the May 2009 press release: The process can be used to tune the colour of the light as well, although currently not to produce pure colours.
• Shawn-Yu Lin, a physics professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute has developed a silver/iridium filter surrounding the filament, that keeps infra-red heat waves in, but lets visible light through. That way the filament runs hotter, and so shines brighter.
According to the research paper, the energy efficacy of an incandescent light bulb can be improved by as much as eight times.
The principle is a bulb coating that again keeps heat in, so the hotter filament gives out more light.
There are several developers involved in this:
• The major lighting companies themselves: General Electric, Osram Sylvania and Philips as well as Auer Lighting of Germany and Toshiba of Japan.
• Deposition Sciences in Santa Rosa, California USA. Its technology currently achieves a 30% efficiency gain, but the company says it has achieved 50% in the laboratory.
• David Cunningham, an inventor in Los Angeles who has already put several lighting innovations on the market. he believes his new reflective coating and fixture design will make incandescents twice as efficient.
While ordinary bulbs dominate in households, the most frequently used light, in the kitchen, is usually fluorescent already.
"With household lighting, the light most used is the kitchen light, the first turned on, and usually the last turned off. This light is already a high intensity fluorescent light as housing construction convention mandates that this is a work area and requires bright lighting, and the brightest are those fluorescent lights. This one light alone consumes 60% of all the lighting power usage requirements for your house."
More in this Australian analysis (July 2009) of the Obama savings statement.
Without going into technicalities, this has to do with current and voltage phase differences set up when CFLs are used.
Of course, whatever the electricity meter says, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
The consumer ends up having to pay anyway for the power stations increased supply, in higher electricity charges.
While industrial electricity company customers are cost penalized if they present a low power factor load to electricity companies, until now that has not been considered a problem with ordinary households.
The US Department of Energy compares with a horse pulling a load, whileSylvania light bulb manufacturer uses a foamy glass of beer analogy, before going into technical details - and light bulb comparisons.
The typical CFL PF of 0.5 to 0.55 means nearly twice the power supply is needed, as is what the CFL wattage says.
CFLs that have the same power factor as ordinary incandescent lights (PF=1) are expensive, and the power factor of such CFLs tends to decrease with age anyway, due to the heat effect on the internal (ballast) components.
"Every transmission line and every transformer in the grid is subjected to resistive losses in the wire that are related to the current being drawn by every customer attached to the power grid. A bad power factor increases the losses by a ratio that is inversely proportional to the total power factor of the attached loads. A total PF of 0.5 means that twice the current is drawn for the power delivered, and the [transmission] losses are not merely doubled, they are quadrupled."
"A poor power factor will also reduce the capacity of power generating equipment, so more machines [and inductors, capacitors] are needed to provide the same total load power."
More information: Australian Rod Elliott's analysis.
Also good, a New Zealand analysis, and this US magazine January 2009 article.
Because of the way CFLs draw power in an irregular fashion (with, as mentioned, current and voltage phases out of alignment) they also set up what is known asharmonic distortion in the grid, contributing to further costs:
"It is worth noting that mains waveform distortion is now becoming big business. There are more and more companies selling large inductors for use as mains filters for critical applications. Likewise, complete filter units are becoming more readily available than ever before, because the cost of replacing motors that fail because of high harmonic currents is considerable ... both the cost of the motor and machine down-time make failures very expensive."
...as the New Zealand report wrily observed, before New Zealand abandoned plans to ban the ordinary light bulbs.
The mentioned US magazine article also deals extensively with these problems:
It talks of several recent studies that claim that efficiency gained by households switching to CFLs is cancelled out by grid maintenance losses. One study says that correcting for the low power factor could cost electric utilities as much as $4 million for every million low power factor CFL bulbs installed.
It is no surprise therefore that politicians are very happy to hide the true cost to consumers, in pushing low power factor CFLs.
This is called smart politics:
What you don't see now, you will not complain about later, because you will never know that your electricity bill is not as low as it should be.
Why is it that people "can't see anything" using CFLs?
Because of the way CFL brightness is measured (more, as part of a Kevan Shaw presentation of CFL problems, also see Rod Elliott's article) they are in practice not as bright, and never seem as bright, as the supposed equivalent light bulb.
What people have sensed and suspected for years was also borne out (29 August 2009) in a simple light meter comparison test by the British newspaper the Daily Telegraph.
"The amount of light in lumens which is produced by a CFL, as shown on the packaging, is based on the peak output of the CFL, not its average level....Further, the CFLs are not expected to reach their peak lumens until 100 hours of use. In effect, there is a 'burn-in' period. Projecting these figures over the life of a CFL, even the better ones would be considered acceptable if their average lumen level turns out to be only 75% to 80% of the amount stated... Also, the light from an incandescent and that from a CFL is not perceived the same way by our visual system. To obtain the same apparent brightness from a CFL as that from an incandescent, the CFL must generate about a third more lumens and thus use a third more energy. For example, the environmentally friendly City of Seattle, which has its own municipal electric system and advocates CFLs, recognizes this feature and uses an efficiency factor of two-thirds, not the usual 75% shown on the CFL packaging. This lower factor is rapidly becoming the standard most often cited by organizations....Moreover, most current CFLs do not distribute their light in the same way as a standard incandescent. This also makes the CFL light, for example on a reading surface, effectively dimmer than an incandescent with the same lumens. This means more total lumens are needed from the CFL in order to match the apparent brightness of the incandescent light at the reading surface. .... ...When all of these factors are considered, the energy savings of the CFL over the incandescent is significantly reduced"
(More: CFL-Kirshner.doc)
Additionally, CFLs become dimmer with age - sometimes rapidly so (more below). The fact that US Energy Star labelled CFLs must not lose more than 10% of total light output at 40% of rated lifespan, that is at less than half their supposed life, is not particularly good.
• Small CFL or LED lamps technically can't be made as bright as incandescents - from the start, and whatever the rating.
This is likely to remain a problem particularly with CFLs, for the simple physical reason that their brightness is proportional to their coated surface radiating area - smaller tubes, less light, all else being equal.
• The brightest possible CFL or LED types are expensive.
• The base of CFLs always has to be bigger to accomodate their internal ballast circuitry, this gives particular problems in fitting them to smaller reading type lamps.
• Encapsulation (covering fluorescent tubes) is recommended by health authorities like the UK Health Protection Agency to reduce close up UV and other CFL radiation but both increases size, and reduces brightness.
Capping LED lamps to try and spread their directional light more, poses similar problems of making them bigger and dimmer.
• Clear incandescent point source light can be focused by lamp shades,maximizing brightness to make reading and other tasks easier.
CFLs can't be focused, while LEDs are directional, but in return don't spread the light well.
• Frosted incandescent lights are popular as they soften the light and don't have the glare of naked filaments, and can still be manufactured to great brightness, but they are in the EU banned earlier, (without any justifiable efficiency reason, but simply to push people to use CFLs).
Modern CFLs are still slow to come on in the cold,
they have a switch on power surge,
and every time they are switched on and off their lifespan is lowered, far more than doing the same with ordinary light bulbs.
Frequent on and off use can bring lifespan right down to light bulb levels: More in the following section.
For all these reasons CFLs tend to be left on, which itself of course also increases energy usage and running cost.
"Part of the problem, it turns out, is that the "lifespan" of a CFL bulb has beenartificially measured. International standards currently require a manufacturer torun the bulb in three hour cycles in the lab, only switching it on at the beginning and off at the end. In other words, the bulb burns for three hours straight with no interference.
In the real world, things are very different. Many householders, particularly in these energy-conscious times, switch on and off lights frequently as they enter and leave rooms. Many modern CFLs are not built to withstand short switching cycles. One recent study shows the lifespan of a CFL can be shortened by a massive 85% under normal domestic household use conditions. In other words, if the lab lifespan was 2,000 hours, you might get only 300 hours (four months) out of that CFL if you were unlucky. A 6,000 hour bulb (five years) would give you only 12 months or so of light before dying unceremoniously." [my emphasis]
See the long and referenced New Zealand analysis (scroll half way).
The recent US Lawrence Livermore National Lab (University of California) study echoes the above, showing that for realistic household use where a light is used for an hour before being turned off, it suffers a 50% reduction in its rated lifetime. The loss to incandescent lifetimes was about 20%. Even worse, if the use of the light is only a half hour, the life of a CFL is reduced by 85%, whereas incandescent bulb lifetimes suffer only a 25% loss.
Meanwhile the official advice... "The cost effectiveness of turning fluorescent lights off to conserve energy is a bit more complicated. For most areas of the United States, a general rule-of-thumb for when to turn off a fluorescent light is if you leave a room for more than 15 minutes", USA Dept of Energy, which goes on to list several situations when leaving lights on for longer may be better or worse. Of course, "leave a light on if you might come back soon" is going to mean many lights left on much longer than foreseen - probably simply forgotten about - with the energy use that involves, in a US household with on average 45 lighting points.
German consumer testing October 2008 in any case showed lifespan problems (in whatever way multiyear lifespans are measured!). In the USA, the Lawrence Livermore National Lab (University of California) study concluded that the lifetime of the average CFL on the consumer market had a median life well short of its reputation or rating.
However, early failures also apply to use with other equipment, such as timers:
"While CFLs can be used with mechanical timers, electronic or digital timers may cause interference with the electronic ballast, and can adversely affect product performance. Typically, CFLs used on electronic or digital timers will fail far before their rated lifetime" (US Energy Star information).
An important point, as the above New Zealand study mentions, is the lack of sufficient warranty provided by manufacturers, that the lights will actually last as long - or even near as long - as they and others like to proclaim.
This is borne out by the US Energy Star information: Manufacturers producing Energy Star qualified CFLs are only required to offer a 2-year limited warranty to cover proven manufacturer defects for residential applications - whatever about the multiyear lifespans assured on the packaging.
Once a ban on simple light bulbs is in place, who's going to care about people's complaints a year or two later?
See the Greener Lights site runthrough of that FAQ.
Also see US lighting designer Don Peifer's referenced ban criticism (pdf document) with CFL related factors, and Canadian electric/electromagnetic professional Walt McGinnis's April 2009 CFL article
But that is from the assembly of previously made parts, themselves complex. A truer figure, including the manufacture of the parts themselves, is many times higher for CFLs than ordinary light bulbs, according to this research (part of a general ecological impact assessment of CFL lights made for Greenpeace Hamburg, Germany, by Klaus Stanjek, so hardly research biased).
Also: Because they are made in coal-powered China, a CFL made there can it seems produce 75 times more carbon emissions than an ordinary light bulb made in essentially emission-free France. More from SaveTheBulb.org here.
Even comparing like for like coal-powered manufacture, a Chinese coal power plant releases about twice as much CO2 per kWh of energy produced, as a western coal power plant does.
This means that inter-continental transport between China and North America/Europe can take place twice, since CFL content including mercury may be shipped back to China for reprocessing and new manufacture.
Even more significantly, shipping use of bunker oil, the worst CO2 emitting type of oil, greatly increases the emissions involved (more).
As reported, an environmental agency suggests it could cost US$1,300 to recycle one wheelie-bin full of CFL light bulbs - with the energy use that involves.
It is hardly a relief if CFLs don't get recycled: They then leak mercury vapour on dump sites instead (more about mercury issues below).
In the UK, the Market Transformation Programme (MTP) has stated that less than 50% of the existing light fittings are suitable to fit a compact fluorescent lamp, with associated large switchover costs.
Problems include enclosed lamps, recessed lighting, track lighting, dimmercircuits, (electronic/digital) timer circuits, where there is vibration (such near fans or machinery), and moisture (bathrooms). The US Department of Energy estimates there are more than 500 million recessed lights alone, in residential buildings.
More about the dangers of CFLs in wrong fixtures below. A good rundown by consultant Rod Elliott of the switchover problems - and costs - that households face,here.
In the EU, the European Commission admits that thousands of European job losses will occur with a changeover, adding to the ones that have already taken place in preparation, also because of the EU import policy regarding Chinese CFL light and light parts.
Any dumping / donations by manufacturers or retailers of unused stock on banning dates, also adds to the cost of switchover, at least for them.
Cue the profit kill: A smart light bulb retailer would have built up massive stocks over the past 6-9 months, only to release them once everyone else's stock has run out, and make a large - and still legal - profit, on that remaining stock.
The point is, 1 September is an EU manufacturing and import stop - not a sales ban.
That said, what makes a ban worse, is the pointlessness in the amounts involved as well, given the disruption and denial of choice that a ban brings, although politicians probably love keeping their pen-pushing bureaucrat friends happy, working out complicated phase-outs and replacements.
Also, by Gad Giladi, past president of the European Lighting Designers Association, a critical analysis (pdf document) regarding energy and money savings, as well as looking at light quality and other issues.
Another wide-ranging analysis, this time by an Australian electrical expert criticizing the Obama July 2009 statement of billions of savings, is found here.
Manitoba Physics professor Peter Blunden sums it up....."Blunden said factoring in heating and cooling changes, Winnipeggers would end up with energy and cash savings of 17 per cent, similar to Manitoba Hydro's findings. Blunden pointed out that lights make up a tiny portion of a home's energy needs, just three per cent on average. 'We're really talking about a very small slice of the energy pie,' he said."
There are of course also all the other factors too, just mentioned in the above rundown, whether directly affecting CFL efficiency (such as on-off switching, power factor, brightness, lifespan issues), or via life cycle comparisons, or the usage of different lights, the most used kitchen light usually being fluorescent already, while many ordinary bulbs would rarely be used; or regarding the increased efficiency of ordinary light bulbs themselves, given the mentioned research breakthroughs.
In this case, the question whether actual energy savings actually warrants a continued ban of this simple, safe, and overwhelmingly preferred product that is the ordinary light bulb.
Given that energy savings are irrelevant as a ban motive in the first place, it's a question that should not even need to be asked.
In the UK, the Market Transformation Programme (MTP) has stated that less than 50% of the existing light fittings are suitable to fit a compact fluorescent lamp, giving considerable switchover costs.
• Dimmer circuits (current increases for technical reasons)
• Track lighting (explanation, heat build up from proximity)
• Recessed and fully enclosed fixtures (unlike ordinary incandescents, CFLs can only be used where they have reasonable ventilation to prevent overheating)
However, the smoke itself is a concern, and if the glass tube cracks then mercury vapour will be released as well.
Rod Elliott expands on the problem here, again quoting how manufacturers consider smoking melted plastic to be normal as CFLs fail, and the dangers faced.
"In some cases, electronic components in the ballast power supply (such as capacitors and resistors) may fail in a manner that will result in some smoke, odor, or discoloration (browning) of the plastic housing. The failure of some electrical components can result in an audible "popping" or "sizzling" sound. It is the function of the ballast housing to contain such failures and prevent the plastic or failed components from igniting"
"Unfortunately, there have been some instances of CFLs smoking or smoldering. While this usually occurs when the product is defective or installed improperly, it is nonetheless a concern to consumers and the government. The latest Energy Star CFL specification (which went into effect December 2, 2008) requires all Energy Star qualified CFLs to incorporate end-of-life requirements and higher safety standards."
"If you have a product that does begin to smoke or smolder, immediately shut off the power to the CFL and, once it has cooled, remove it from the light socket. Then, send us e-mail at cfl@energystar.gov to alert us of this incident. Please include the product manufacturer's name and model information that is included on the CFL base and if possible an electronic photo. Also please tell us how the CFL was used - open or enclosed light fixture; indoors or outdoors; base orientation - up, down or sideways."
Note: The ideal position for CFLs is said to be mounted upwards, though rarely practical.
Moisture is a particular concern, and use of CFLs in bathrooms is not advised.
As Energy Star administrators point out, manufacturers producing Energy Star qualified CFLs are only required to offer a 2-year warranty for residential applications. More on CFL lifespan concerns above.
This has been known for a long time, generally with different appliances (research), as well as specifically such as with infra red TV controls (research).
"CFLs with electronic ballasts also interfere with wireless devices and, in New Zealand, ripple control systems (hot water). Harmonics may also interfere with or even damage other equipment, especially electronic appliances," consultant David Cogan warned in his paper.
The interference is said to run from crashing wireless networks, to increased static noise on radios, televisions and the like, and the mimicking of infra-red remote controls.
"Many electronic devices, such as radios, televisions, wireless telephones, and remote controls, use infrared light to transmit signals. Infrequently, these types of electronic devices accidentally interpret the infrared light coming from a compact fluorescent bulb as a signal, causing the electronic device to temporarily malfunction or stop working...[and] your television might suddenly change channels... To reduce the chance of interference, avoid placing compact fluorescent bulbs near these kinds of electronic devices. If interference occurs, move the bulb away from the electronic device, or plug either the light fixture or the electronic device into a different outlet."
Some migraine sufferers are for example particularly sensitive to the blue light notably present in fluorescent lights; a "soft colour" filter may or may not alleviate this.
Other causes of migraines are glare, highly contrasting, or inappropriate light levels: While not specifically related to fluorescent lights, notice that the ban on frosted light bulbs and halogens in the EU, with LEDs not yet suitable as replacement lighting, means that there are no real alternatives to fluorescents for unenclosed ceiling lights, however much politicians try to say otherwise.
Concern has repeatedly been raised by medical and healthcare organizations, such as, in the UK, the British Association of Dermatologists and other skin careorganizations, such as those catering for lupus sufferers, as well as solar urticaria, chronic actinic dermatitis, porphyria cutanea tarda and xeroderma pigmentosum.
In December 2008 The Canadian Federal Government health department launched a review of CFLs citing the concerns raised, again mainly relating to UV radiation, awaiting a preliminary outcome expected autumn 2009.
Many of the new energy efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs produce high levels of radio frequency radiation.
Most also produce a harmful high frequency electric field (V/M) radiating several feet.
Professor Magda Havas of Trent University, Ontario, Canada has carried out extensive research (2008) into the general effects of electromagnetic radiation, and particularly of micro and radio waves.
"CFL's operate at high frequency using an electronic switching ballast to "chop up" our 120 volt AC electricity to low-voltage power - that's how they are able to use less energy when compared to an old-style incandescent bulb. This chopping results in voltage fluctuations (microsurges) that produce a ringing in the electromagnetic spectrum and is often measured in the radio frequency (RF) range frequencies above 3 kHz. A typical operating frequency for an electronic ballast in a CFL would be in the region of 50kHz to 100kHz. A frequency range know to produce adverse effects on one's health....this is something that most people can test with a portable radio on AM. As you bring the radio close to an energy efficient bulb that produces radio frequencies the radio will begin to buzz"
"According to General Electric (GE) their typical electronically-ballasted CFL operate in the 24-100 kHz frequency range. This range is within the radio frequency band of the electromagnetic spectrum and is classified as Intermediate Frequency (IF5) by the World Health Organization. There is concern about electromagnetic interference (EMI) associated with IF and recently [other] studies have [also] shown that IF are biologically active and can have adverse health effects.......The GE bulb emits radio frequencies directly through the air and generates IF on wires ......teachers who taught in [such] classrooms had a 5-fold increase risk of cancer (risk ratio 5.1) that was statistically significant.....studies with diabetics and people who have multiple sclerosis and found that when [such radiation] is reduced their symptoms diminish"
Electrohypersensitivity (radio wave sickness) is also considered, with symptoms given.
Dr. Martin Graham, Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering at the University of California, and David Stetzer of Stetzer Electric in Wisconsin, have also drawn attention to these problems, as in a radio interview scroll to October 17 2008).
More radiation information here; also Dr Bradford Weeks of Washington has a goodoverview of research into electromagnetic radiation sources and effects.
Better still, the main suggested replacement is a complex mercury containing light that has both health and environmental questions surrounding it....
Typically 5mg of mercury is involved - about the size of a fullstop, as politicians and their agencies like to point out.
Of course, small amounts still matter if the toxicity is high.
The US EPA limit for human exposure to mercury in the atmosphere is 300 nanograms. To put that in context, 5mg is 5 million nanograms of mercury...
Typically, a room should be closed off with ventilation to the outside and vacated for about 15 minutes, and then parts picked up into a plastic bag using rubber gloves, the bag sealed off and sent for recycling, vacuum cleaning up the parts is expressly not advised. See for example the US Environmental Protection Agencyrecommendations.
Maine state government breakage testing in 2008 found worries to be justified.
The Maine study - and a follow up study- led to stricter recommendations, also by EPA.
In many ways it's unfortunate that whipped up worries around mercury is used against banning light bulbs:
It should be clear from all said so far that banning today's simple cheap light bulbs is itself wrong, whatever about the merits of any alternative lighting offered.
That said, the CFL findings do give some cause for concern.
EPA continues "If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away"
• Adding to the previous recommendations of ventilating the room, "venting should continue for several hours after a lamp cleanup to be conservative."
• Even visibly clean floor surfaces, can emit mercury immediately at the source that can be greater than 50,000 ng/m3
• Vacuum cleaning is particularly dangerous, especially of carpets, and can lead to repeated high dosages being released. Mercury remains trapped in the carpet fibres. To make matters worse, some vacuum cleaners were so contaminated that cleaning them was impossible, meaning not only was the carpet over and out, so was the vacuum cleaner.
The scientists say it is possible that one single "spike" dose of mercury could be enough to damage a baby or a child's brain, even if there is no further ongoing exposure. The experiments show a 20 watt CFL bulb can produce a spike of 100,000 ng/m3, 300 times the recommended allowable maximum.
"Mercury sources left in the carpets, the mercury levels in the air that this can cause in certain circumstances, and the potential to irreversibly contaminate the vacuum are all factors that point toward removal of the carpet section where the lamp has broken. This is the easiest and surest means of eliminating the mercury source that remains in the carpet. We realize this is unpleasant and could be the source of controversy. However, it seems the surest means of eliminating avoidable mercury exposure."
• In the USA insurance companies won't be covering the cost of replacing your carpet or other nmaterials, going by the official recommendation in the US state of Maine, which may become the national standard in the US.
• To put exposure levels in perspective, a study of workers who had been exposed on a regular basis to 33,000 nanograms/m3 of mercury and compared in a neurological test to a control group of 70 unexposed people, found they scored worse on "mental arithmetic, 2-digit search, switching attention, visual choice reaction time and finger tapping". A similar study of dentists, where the atmospheric readings in their offices were 16,000 ng/m3, found similar drops in mental capacity.
• Plastic bags are next to useless for containing a broken CFL bulb.
"Double re-sealable polyethylene bags... did not appear to retard the migration of mercury adequately to maintain room air concentrations below the MAAG... The significance of this issue is that cleanup material may remain in the home for some period of time and/or be transported inside a closed vehicle, exposing occupants to avoidable mercury vapors when improperly contained... The best method of containing bulb waste is inside a glass jar with a hermetically sealed lid."
• The scientists note that the mercury contamination was considerably worse - nearly double in fact - at summertime temperatures (32C) than winter (23C).
The UK Government Dept of Environment (DEFRA) has similar official recommendations to EPA.
However, the EU is very quiet, and in many if not most European countries there are
• no official guidelines,
• no warnings on or inside packages informing people what to do with breakages,
• no recycling advice on packages.
Unrecycled CFLs pose a major environmental problem.
Recycling is obligatory, but household compliance in most countries is low just as it is with batteries and indeed household recycling in general.
Only 2% of CFLs are recycled (and after many years, even the industrial recycling programs only handle about 25% of industrial, long tubular, fluorescent lights).
Also see Ed Kirshner's review, covering this and many other aspects of CFL mercury.
In May 2009, following the breakage testing mentioned above, Maine became the first state to pass a law requiring manufacturers to limit mercury levels in the bulbs and pay for recycling them. CFL manufacturers will have to provide free collection of household CFLs by 2011, though the precise way is not specified. Note that similar free collection schemes in shops etc of CFLs (and batteries) in the EU has not given much result.
There are around 4 billion ordinary light bulbs in the European Union (ELC, European Lighting Companies, 2007 figure, and European Commission data 2007-8), also 4 billion in the USA (lighting industry data 2008), and obviously plenty elsewhere too.
Any successful forced replacement of ordinary bulbs with fluorescent lights would therefore lead to multiple billions of unrecycled lights at dump sites around the planet leaking mercury vapour into the atmosphere
Additionally:
(With acknowledgement to Guardian environment editor John Vidal, to lighting professional Ed Kirshner, and to Daily Telegraph and The Times science and environment correspondents)
Worldwide, the production stage is said to be about 70% efficient, so around 30% is lost to the environmernt right at the start.
Partly due to the increasing demand for their CFLs, China is one of the few places left on Earth that still mines specifically for new mercury. These mines may not meet western environmental and safety standards. Industry estimates are that as much mercury is lost to the environment in the mining, processing and shipping of mercury, as is made available for us. More from the Times May 2009:
"A surge in foreign demand, set off by a European Union directive making these bulbs compulsory within three years, has also led to the reopening of mercury mines that have ruined the environment....the government shut all the big mercury mining operations in the [Guizhou] region in recent years in response to a fall in global mercury prices and concern over dead rivers, poisoned fields and ailing inhabitants....the conditions were medieval, miners hewed chunks of rock veined with cinnabar, the main commercial source of mercury. They inhaled toxic dust and vapours as the material seethed in primitive cauldrons to extract the mercury. Nobody wore a mask or protective clothing."
As much mercury is spilled into the environment in the manufacture of CFLs in China as goes into the CFLs according to recent statements from industry representatives. The Times article again:
"Large numbers of Chinese workers have been poisoned by mercury, which forms part of the compact fluorescent lightbulbs.... In southern China, compact fluorescent lightbulbs destined for western consumers are being made in factories that range from high-tech multinational operations to sweat-shops, with widely varying standards of health and safety. Tests on hundreds of employees have found dangerously high levels of mercury in their bodies and many have required hospital treatment, according to interviews with workers, doctors and local health officials in the cities of Foshan and Guangzhou."
CFLs are delivered from China to Europe and North America on ships using bunker oil, the worst of the fuel oils in terms of emissions of mercury, CO2, sulphur and other substances. Legislating for international shipping is difficult, with ships flagged for unregulated countries, a problem already seen with taxes and labour conditions.
Also see the Economist article, and the transport section above
More: Since spent CFLs, and/or their contents, including mercury, are sent back to China for reprocessing and reuse in new CFLs, that doubles the inter-continentalshipping transport.
Compare with local transport of locally made lights in eco-friendly conditions using local workers...
CFLs are almost all made in China, where 80% of energy derives from coal power plants that emit ten times the amount of mercury per kWh (and twice the CO2) than for example US coal power plants emit.
Compare with locally made light bulbs, not only using less energy in manufacture, but using it from cleaner coal power plants or from energy with no emissions in the first place. Add to that the transport mercury emissions and other emission release relating to China, as mentioned above.
More on CFL life cycle emissions here, the CO2 emission arguments there largely mirroring those for mercury.
It is sometimes suggested that the use of light bulbs is a bigger local environmental threat than the mercury in fluorescent lights.
In other words, that local power stations give out more mercury from light bulb usage than what there is in fluorescent light usage and content, typically 4 or 5mg of mercury.
It is about 1/2 in the USA, 1/3 in the UK, 1/5 in Ireland, and of course substantially less (and decreasing) in many countries.
As an example, the US Government EPA 2002 5-year comparison diagram, variations of which are often used by ban proponents, assumes all power comes from coal, concluding that in such situations CFLs are better.
A more recent Yale study (Eckelman, Anastas, Zimmerman) goes further, directlyadvising against switching to CFLs where coal power does not dominate.
Power station mercury release has for a long time been treatable by using wet scrubbers (chemical, not human, I hasten to add), in combination with recently cheaper and more effective injection and photochemical techniques.
As Drs. Adams and Senior explain:
"Wet scrubbers do a good job of removing oxidized mercury with removal efficiency greater than 75 percent in most of the wet scrubbers tested to date. However, wet scrubbers do not remove elemental mercury... [combinations can remove] more than 80 percent of the mercury".
More recent activated carbon injection Colorado study (Amrhein, Sjostrom) shows 90% reductions, and so have photochemical methods, as shown by research inNew Hampshire (McLarnon, Granite, Pennline).
Coal gasification has existed for a long time too (in California since the 1980s at Cool Water), with the additional benefit of making CO2 capture and storage easier.
"On March 15, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule to permanently cap and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants for the first time ever. This rule makes the United States the first country in the world to regulate mercury emissions from utilities."
Early in 2009, utility company complaints were defeated in the Supreme Court and incoming EPA administrator Lisa Jackson will "vigorously pursue" the reduction policy.
The politicians again face one way and talk of how banning bulbs gives X million tons of emission savings by 2020 based on today's power station emission levels, and then facing the other way they say how they are cutting down the same emissions over the next few years by direct action on power stations (via emission processing and/or replacement with renewables). Nice one.
1. We know where the ever decreasing local coal power stations chimneys are and we can treat their emissions with ever increasing efficiency at lower costs.
2. Compare that with billions of scattered broken lights on dump sites, when we do not know where the broken lights will be, and so we can't do anything about them.
The irony of banning ordinary light bulbs on environmental grounds is now complete (March 2009) in that the recent international -and European - mercury reduction agreements excludes the mercury in CFLs!
On the other hand, light bulbs have been safely used for over 100 years.
LED lights "show great promise for the future".
Why not wait until CFL recycling has been properly organized, and new improvedsafe lights are on the market?
The industrial politics behind a rushed ban is of course no excuse.
If new lights are so great for consumers they might (shock!) actually want to buy them, without being forced to. There is also the ever-increasing spread of emission-free energy as described in the Emission sections, above.
MEPs are agreeing to something most don't seem to have checked!
(not unlike something called the "Lisbon Treaty", in this part of the world...)
or click through from http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/
Most ordinary light bulbs that people buy and use in the EU are frosted.
Most halogen replacement lights that Europeans choose to buy are also frosted
(Lighting industry data 2008).
Frequent close use of "energy saving" lights is not recommended anyway, forhealth reasons.
The use of clear, transparent lights, especially halogens and especially in ceiling lamps, high room lamps, is not practical, because of the strong glare from the visible shining filament inside the bulb.
1. The ban proponents are not familiar with different lights and uses.
2. They don't even follow their own logic regarding replacements.
3. They keep saying to MEPs and mass media "halogen lights are allowed":
No they are not, whether immediately, with the ban on practical replacement types that most Europeans use, or in the future, when in effect all halogens will be banned.
New Zealand has abandoned ban plans.
Canada is putting developments on hold, with a Federal investigation since December 2008, following mounting concern, into the safety of the "energy saving" lights (preliminary results expected autumn 2009).
Australia is at a similar stage to the EU: But the phase-out is more directlyefficiency-based, without immediately banning all the most practical and popular frosted light bulbs or halogens.
Australia is also warmer than the EU so the heat benefit of light bulbs matters less, as does the slow cold response of "energy saving" lights. It also has 80-85% coal dependent electricity, coal being the main CO2 gas emitter.
Of course that still does not justify a ban in Australia either, it remains that light bulbs can have usage and light quality advantages that people like, and dealing with emissions themselves is in any case a better way forward.Ecodesign Technical Report December 2008:
"Indeed the decrease of mercury emissions resulting from energy savings (electricity generation in power plants has its own mercury emissions) outweighs the need for mercury in the lamps. It remains that CFL lamps should be disposed properly. The impact of both elements [ UV radiation and risk of mercury release ] can be further reduced by using CFLs with an outer non-breakable lamp envelope..... external envelope which hides the tubes and makes it even more similar to light bulbs (though decreasing its efficiency)"
True.Ecodesign Technical Report December 2008:
".....most lamps with integrated electronics (such as compact fluorescent lamps) are produced in third countries..... overall, at most2-3000 [additional] jobs are estimated to become redundant after the incandescent lamp phase-out. This is to be looked at with the 5 to10bn € saved from energy bills which can be reinvested every year in other economic activities that generate employment."Press Release December 8 2008: "Depending on the number of lamps installed, an average household switching from incandescent bulbs to compact fluorescent lamps could make net savings (taking into account higher purchasing price of the lamps) between 25 and 50 € a year on their electricity bill. This means that 5 to 10bn€ will be reinjected every year into the EU economy."
Tariffs on CFLs, "energy saving" lights (and components) from China have been lowered to try to boost sales in Europe.
The use of sea or air transport around the world hardly saves on energy or carbon emissions (the far greater energy/emissions involved with CFL manufacture, transport, recycle transport, recycle reprocessing and transport of processed parts than with light bulb manufacture/transport, is overlooked), and of course "no recycling" just means leaking mercury on dump sites instead.
To the human cost of job losses (with more job losses having occurred already with the CFL tariff lowering, as Ecodesign admits), should be added all the other changeover costs ec as described above.
Tariff lowering was actually welcomed by presumed European competitors who, on the contrary, cooperate in the use of Chinese made parts or whole bulbs. Indeed, forced household lighting change will be a bonanza for the major lighting manufacturers.
But is that more important than allowing consumers to keep buying what they obviously want to use, given that energy and emission problems can be solved anyway?
All the price / usage / lifecycle / switchover factors as previously described are not included.
Even if consumers save money, savings are of course no reason to ban what people want to buy and use, or you could ban half of what's in the shops (more on why savings arguments are not justified).
About savings creating jobs: Why not ban cotton trousers/pants too in favour of woollen pants?
Cotton pants ="Cheap to buy but expensive in the long run". Their ban gives lots of jobs (for sheep-farmers anyway, of course losing them for cotton-pickers, a see-saw applicable to light bulbs too as just seen). Politicians might even realize that cotton trousers are different from woollen ones and that consumers like them, so why ban them. Well, light bulbs are different from other lights and popular too (9/10 lights sold in Europe, 19/20 USA).
These kind of pseudo-economic savings arguments (stop people from buying what they want and save lots of money) keep being trotted out to justify cutting down on consumer freedom, with little challenge from opposition politicians or media.
Regarding public finances, then much more government income is of course generated by taxing rather than banning inefficient products, which also is obviously preferable to bans for consumers since they can still buy what they want, although such taxation is itself only justifiable in certain circumstances.EU Ecodesign committee "promise for 2009":
"The regulation is only one of the Ecodesign measures that will be adopted by the Commission over the coming months, targeting many more products such as consumer electronics, white goods or heating appliances"
Are we living in the Soviet Union or are we living in the European Union?
We were sent here by the EU Ecodesign Commissariat!
We have come to take away your light bulbs!
Well, French electricity isn't really causing any emissions... but we are here to help you save lots of money anyway!
Oh Madame, that electric coffee grinder... what luxury... and the mixer... surely you can use your hands? A plasma TV screen? Why don't you draw pictures on the window instead? Très amusant!
Mais sacrebleu! Is that a vacuum cleaner, or am I a clown?
You will now please use a brush instead, in Europe we need to save the planet!
Non, non, non, a fan heater? Ça va pas, hein? Madame, if you run up and down the stairs you will keep very warm, and save energy ..well electric energy anyway!
Alors, we will write this down... No. 114367422356 Mme Fleury "for reinspection".
Thank you Madame, remember we are here to help you. Please vote for us in the European election!....."
So why don't we all go live in caves and use candles?
That will save 1000 zillion euros/dollars and 5000 million megatons of gas.
As long as we don't bring any cows with us.
Of course we can.
There is not a problem with securing sufficient energy, for reasons given earlier, so focus will here be given on ensuring supplies are low emitting.
One way is to do something about existing fossil fuel power stations, of which coal is the main problem.
Not only has there been considerable investment in these plants, but coal is a relatively cheap resource that won't run out for many years yet, and coal rich states obviously want to make use of the energy resource they have, either themselves, or by exporting the coal.
Can the emissions be dealt with directly?
Coal gasification is a reduction method that has existed for some time (more), in California since the 1980s at Cool Water.
More ambitiously, carbon needs to be filtered, processed and stored, so that it doesn't get re-released as CO2 for a long time. Such Carbon Capture and Storage solutions are already in use, notably at Schwarze Pumpe in Germany, while the USA has West Virginia and other planned trials. New breakthroughs in thefiltering and reprocessing process have developed in Wyoming and California, (Wyoming processing reporting 90% reductions), and in general there is great activity, particularly in the coal industry, to come up with acceptable solutions.
Of practical importance is how to retrofit existing coal-fired plants with such solutions.
Lacq in France has such a pioneering project, with a long gas pipeline to underground storage.
Nuclear/Renewable energy
The current shift to renewables has not been handled as well as it might, in many countries. There should have been more coordinated planning with storage, metering and grid development. For example, the encouragement for factories to have their own wind or solar energy supply does not amount to much if the problems have not been solved, of storage (allowing use when required), and/or of feeding back surplus energy to the main grid.
It is also long lasting and potentially renewable (breeder reactor possibilites with current systems, possible future fusion technology).
Energy security is not a problem for western countries and allies (half of the world's Uranium exports are from Canada and Australia).
Disadvantages include high start-up costs and waste disposal concerns.
Overall, if it is of prime importance to actually reduce global emissions fast, and not to engage in the face-saving charades of emission trading (with all its disruption and/or loopholes) or the token ban of light bulbs and of other products that people want to use, then nuclear expansion should seriously be considered.
The only other currently realistic emission-free base-loading option (that is, with the easy ability to provide peak demand) is hydropower, but as has often been quoted, "there are only so many rivers that can be dammed up".
There are 2 basic ways of dealing with this:
1. Grid expansion (someone somehere will be using electricity).
2. Storage (release as and when required).
Combination effects might also be pursued with existing forms. For example, since wind turbine towers are tall and exposed to sunlight, they could conceivably have larger light solar panel clad sails, looking somewhat like old Dutch windmills, again combining solar and wind power generation.
Grid expansion, joining up existing grids, means on the one hand larger new grids or "supergrids", but also increasing interconnections between participating smaller grids, an "internet" of electricity.
In the USA, apart from the advantage of connecting up of the large number of independent grids, an overhaul of the capacity and operation of the grids themselves is needed, as described above: Also see the April 2009 US grid analysis by Stephen Burnage.
In Europe the expansion is of particular importance to outlying areas like Ireland, the UK and Scandinavia, to connect up with the well populated European mainland, and beyond.
This in turn leads to:
1. Better competition at all times, with lower prices for consumers.
2. The easier spread of nuclear and renewable energy from producers to consumers, wherever they are.
This includes from neigbouring regions, such as such as hydropower-rich Norway for the EU, or hydropower-rich Canadian states (British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec) for the USA.
3. Generation optimization: Unfortunately, most renewable electricity generation is dependent on local conditions (sun, wind, water falling, tides, waves...). So it's an advantage to use locations that have the best conditions to start with, and expand such facilities, also because it's usually easier to expand established facilities than to start new ones. The latter may also apply to facilities that have a long start-up time, for example expanding existing nuclear power facilities rather than starting new ones.
4. Increased security: On the one hand, it has to be acknowledged that imported energy gives rise to security concerns (see energy supply issues, above).
However, as said, interconnections (as in the EU or North America) would largely be between allied, cooperating nations, and in being of low emissions, can also lower a given country's carbon footprint.
But it is also the case that by increasing interconnections, there is less reliance on any one source or connection. So if one supplier or connection is knocked out, others can take over, also automatically, as alerted to grid management by grid sensors.
Shutdowns can also be sensed directly by future consumer based smart meters, that can switch automatically between providers.
Basically, while direct current can be stored chemically (as batteries), alternating current (the usual grid form) can in practice, at least until recently, only be stored in forms with mechanical delivery, given the rotational energy involved in its generation. A hydroelectric dam is the most well known storage form, with water pumped up at off-peak times, subsequently released to drive electricity generating turbines.
This mirrors the relationship that can exist betweeen Danish wind farms and Swedish hydroelectric dams: an exchange of electricity back and forth, Denmark basically storing the wind energy in the Swedish dams and getting it back as required, a hydropower energy bank.
However, there are current attempts to use such storage solutions also in local power generation. Uckermark, in Germany, utilizes wind power to produce hydrogen which in turn is mixed with biogas and used in local power stations. The problem with these kinds of storage solutions is the great loss of energy in the conversion chain from wind generation to eventual power delivery.
Following from what was previously said, public service provision should be split up and sold off to different privately owned providers, to ensure good competition. Such split sales might be according to energy source where applicable.
The Texas ERCOT system is an example of how grid ownership can be separate from that of generation, and also how operational control across the system can be more effective. Similar administration might be applied on a more national scale, to the extent possible.
The key is equal opportunity, in access to any subsidies as well as in access to the public electricity distribution grid. Obviously fossil fuel power companies need clarity regarding terms of their future access to the grid, but, rather like car manufacturers providing electric alternatives, fossil fuel companies can of course themselves be involved in nuclear or renewable energy. Besides, as outlined below, emissions from existing coal/gas/oil power stations can also be lowered with new technology.
Today a typical European monopoly provider has no competitive pressure regarding how it operates, the running costs it decides to have, the price it decides to set.
In a turnaround, rather than consumers being dependent on the whims of a single provider, the new competing providers are dependent on them.
Unfortunately, the talk is usually of launching "smart meters" that basically tell you if you have a light switched on or not.
Imagine instead the installation of smart meters that can switch to the cheapestelectricity provider at a given time, automatically or manually, with requests queued to avoid demand spikes (queueing similar to trading in shares).
It would also have subscription options (good block buy deals) and household usage information, and some meters could have a buy back provision for any consumer generated electricity to feed back to the grid.
The meters are nowadays not a particularly difficult concept, similar meters have already been developed for industry. Service quality (voltage stability) can be monitored both at consumer and distribution level.
Notice the implication of this for energy security, a continued service despite a chosen supply line going down, as long as it's not on the last connection line (obvious parallel with the Internet - more above about the Internet of Electricity.
Meanwhile, the mentioned neutral public ownership of distribution networks here facilitates fair monitoring of overall service quality, service competition might otherwise sacrifice quality for price.
The subscription options also mean that those who want it can get "green" energy, to given emission standards.
Regardless of how many different providers are used, the consumer still gets asingle itemized bill.
The consumer needn't get particularly involved with who is supplying what or when, if he or she does not want to, benefiting from lower prices anyway, and can simply set to constantly receive for example the cheapest energy.
Single billing also means a consumer can easily see how much they are owing at any given time, and can equally easily see how their choice stands up to other options of buying electricity.
all this arises out of having multiple private service providers compete within a single public distributive network:
The directness and the transparency of that competition will always see the price being as low as possible within the quality parameters you wish to put on it.
1. What is the size of the problem?
2. What is the importance of the activity, to society and to the users of the activity?
3. What solutions have been found elsewhere in the world?
4. What is the speed, cost, and effectiveness of any solution?
When looking at consumption, it is of electricity in general, then of individualproduct use.
When looking at product use, it is in the order information > taxation > banning.
Consideration is given to the speed, cost and effectiveness of new developments using emission-free energy sources, and of using existing emission-free sources more effectively.
The efficiency of non-emitting generation and spread is therefore analyzed, as already exemplified in previous sections.
Consideration is also given to fossil fuel emissions, of which coal is the main problem.
The emissions be dealt with directly through carbon capture and storage solutions, as seen earlier.
1. The price rises here are described from the point of view of lowering consumption rather than financing emission reduction. As described in Climate Change USAabove, energy companies can actually fund emission reduction or energy substitution or energy distribution from equity finance and long term federal/state guaranteed loans, giving low yearly interest repayments on the latter, and little effect on consumer electricity bills.
As a finite energy, it will gradually get more expensive anyway, automatically leading to a switch to renewables.
And, if mentioned carbon capture and storage can be sufficiently developed, then there is no need to abandon it on such grounds either.
The point is that the consumer has energy alternatives:
Firstly for their own sake, simply as competition to existing sources,
secondly, in the form of renewables, as viable alternatives as and when finite sources become scarcer and more expensive,
thirdly, in the form of emission-free alternatives, should fossil fuel emission reduction measures not be deemed adequate.
See previous distribution and smart metering section.
Here we'll look more directly at lowering consumption of fossil fuel electricity itself.
As it happens this can also fund emission solutions.
[fossil fuel itself is often taxed simply to raise government income, but is in principle wrong if done for emission reasons, and not just because of wider implications for industry and jobs in these economic times: There is nothing wrong with using fossil fuel if emission levels are sufficiently low, by achieving phased reduced emission levels by certain dates, which may then allow continued economical fossil fuel use, at least in current recessionary times with low fuel prices. If demand for fossil fuel rises, whether from industrial expansion or simply from its depletion, its price rises anyway and demand falls, without any particular need for political intervention]
It also maintains consumer freedom in how the electricity is used.
It also makes nuclear and renewable (non-emitting) energy relatively cheaper.
It can also provide the money to fund dealing with the actual problem, the power station emissions.
It can also be a temporary solution, until such emissions reach an accepted level, compared with other (industry, transport) emissions in society.
However,
industry can more easily than households switch to non-emitting suppliers (and an industry-only fossil fuel price rise action is therefore an option),
there are self-providing renewable energy schemes for industry,
and the measure can be temporary until the emission problem is sufficiently reduced.
[Remember: this section is about lowering consumption, as said the rise in people's electricity bills can be kept down by power stations using long term funding for specific reduction measures, as described in the USA climate change proposal,above. Note that a situation with low energy prices can be used to the same end, in this case with regulators simply keeping the electricity prices up to allow the finance of energy changes. Their political masters know very well that the public won't complain as much, as if there was an actual price rise.]
While any price rise measure may be temporary, it is of course harder for most households (given current grid organization) to switch suppliers.
Consideration is therefore given to the availability of non-emitting electricity suppliers, and price rise action might await such availability.
The other way of solving this is to simultaneously fund insulation and energy improvements for poorer homes, with a means-tested sliding scale allowance. Other households can have tax-deductible home improvement schemes.
Green jobs can go to Green Squads that install double glazing, attic insulation, alternative heating and the like. The electricity price rise can then be cancelled out by lower overall energy costs for many households.
We are not talking about banning leads paint or fireworks here (and of course electrical products don't emit any CO2 gases, either).
The object is simply to reduce their use.
Information and Taxation are therefore not just the considerate, but also the logical, first choices of any targeting action.
Information is the first step.
For example, public information campaigns and energy efficiency labelling, as already applied.
Taxation is the next step, if necessary.
As with bans, saving on energy is no reason for taxation.
It should only be considered if emissions can't be lowered quickly or cheaply enough.
That is unlikely to be necessary, given the likely small if any savings involved, and the several electricity generation/distribution ways to act on emission reduction, as explained, not all of which are costly or need take a long time.
To sum up, this course might be taken, by those otherwise favouring bans:
1. In the belief of emission reduction, particularly when seen as politically desirable not to raise the price of fossil fuel electricity.
2. To raise government income, for whatever purpose.
Cars, unlike electrical products, give out emissions, yet cars are taxed for such emissions, not banned (also see USA car emission taxation proposal above).
Electrical products can be taxed in the same way.
Existing efficiency labelling can conveniently be used for a new "carbon tax".
In a more striking move, any sales tax ("value added tax", EU) on the products could be altered at the same time, so that with both taxations the most efficientproducts ("A" class in EU, high Energy Star in USA, etc) would be zero rated, making them cheaper than today.
Governments can make money, consumers can save money, yet also keep free choice, and the environment benefits more than from bans (due to increased use of cheaper efficient products, and since tax income from inefficient products can go to projects lowering emissions more than remaining product use raises them).
Governments - unlike with bans - gain income from the reduced sales, income that can be spent on measures (home energy schemes, renewable projects) that reduce emissions more than any remaining product use causes them.
Government income can be considerable, since inefficient products are often cheap and relatively short-lived.
Moreover, taxation is much easier to organize than it is to work out product phase-outs and suitable replacements.
Taxation is easy to adjust for fiscal income/sales reduction required, it is easy toadapt to new products and market conditions, and it is easy to lift when no longer required (for example once sufficient emission reduction is achieved), without having wiped out the manufacture of the targeted product.
Light bulbs alone can raise substantial sums, as described below.
Taxation can be spread, making efficient products cheaper than they are today.
Consumers are therefore lured towards such green choices.
[ Note: It is sometimes suggested that, with a ban, if everyone has to buy efficient products, it will make them cheaper, on economy of scale.
This is a valid point. However, there are several arguments against that, as previously explained:
With a ban, cheap competing inefficient products, keeping down prices overall, have been removed, and there are fewer manufacturers making complex products, again reducing competition.
Manufacturers simply charge what they can on the marketplace, regardless of the product quantity they deliver.
Competition is what keeps prices down, and of course gives variety of choice for consumers.]
Meanwhile, if they buy inefficent products, the taxes can go towards dealing with the problem of power station emissions themselves, as described (or say to home energy and insulation schemes, or renewable energy projects) that lower emissions more than product use causes them.
After all, cars can have emission limits, with efficiency tax on cars that are allowed.
However, to reiterate:
1. Electrical products, unlike cars, do not themselves give out any gases. Banning a type of car directly stops emissions, banning a type of electrical product does not. The problem is at the power station level, which is dealt with by renewable development and/or carbon emission processing/storage.
2. It may sound good to "ban inefficient (versions of) product" but any inefficient product needs to have specially compensating attractions for consumers (sports cars, fan heaters etc).
Consumers don't buy them to save on running costs anyway, and if low price is an attraction (efficient, durable products tend to cost more), that itself also gives scope for the taxation that can fund green initiatives.
3. Supposed "equivalent replacements" are of course never equivalent or the inefficient product in question wouldn't exist in the first place, and consumer resentment by panic buying and hoarding works against both the short term ban objectives themselves, and future public willingness to cooperate in environmentally beneficial consumption and lifestyle changes.
Households with electricity emissions below a certain level, now or in the future, should arguably not be hit by either electrical product "carbon" taxation or bans.
This particularly applies to states where emission-free electricity already dominates today (like, in the EU, Sweden, France, Austria, Finland, similarly to some Canadian states like the almost completely hydropowered British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec, or coastal USA, with hydropower/nuclear around half of coastal NW use, and of some East Coast states).
However if they choose to implement such taxation, it can of course go to other green measures, or to any priority in these bad economic times. Also, while still wrong in principle, citizens are often taxed in other ways they may consider unfair, and even a big tax is of course better than a ban on the product they want to use.
cheap (60-70 cents or so, and are also cheap compared to most other lights)
popular (9 out of 10 lights bought, 19 out of 20 in USA),
everywhere (4 billion in the EU - as in the USA),
with a good turnover (1000 hour life).
Taxation therefore makes more sense than a ban, also for those against light bulbs:
A large tax or levy, say 3 euros or more, can drive down light bulb sales to a point where any supposed emissions or energy waste problem is effectively eliminated.
Such taxation, based on the annual sales of 2 billion (European lighting industry data 2007, again same amount in USA) being cut down to some hundred millions, raisesmultiple billions of euros/dollars in coming years of easy money for governments in these bad economic times, and it is a tax that everyone accepts, knowing a ban is the alternative.
In other words: "ban benefit" and big government income too. See more on the page on light bulb taxation here
With apparently increasing consumer and media resistance to ban, and with increasing light bulb manufacturing/sales/hoarding before the autumn ban date, a 5 euro light bulb taxation suggestion (10 May 2009) as being better than a ban from perhaps a surprising source, namely German CFL manufacturer, Megaman, alongside Osram und Philips the leading CFL manufacturer on the continent. Maintaining that CFLs are better, their justification is on "polluter pay" principle so that money raised can be used for combating environmental effects they judge that light bulbs have. In German, pdf document, copy-pastable into Altavista or other online translators: here.
Taxation on light bulbs, as on other electrical products, is unlikely to be necessary for reasons given in the taxation section introduction.
Taxation is also wrong for similar reasons to bans: with token energy or emissionsavings, energy savings being unnecessary anyway, and with real emission savings much more appropriately achieved by proper decisive action on transport and electricity generation/distribution (together typically 4/5 of CO2 emissions, as in the USA). Such action on electricity and transport has benefits regardless of whether CO2 reduction itself is worthwhile, and can be compared with emission trading with its expenses, its disruptions, its loopholes, and its implications for international relations.
The point here is therefore not to promote taxation: Merely to show that it ispreferable to bans.
While both banning and taxation should be avoided, bans have few if any advantages, either for governments or consumers.
Nothing.
In fact there is a loss of tax and shop retail revenue, from cross-border purchases of popular products, possibly including the Internet.
banning reduces consumer freedom, remembering that all products have unique uses or they wouldn't be on the market, and that inefficient products are particularly desirable to compensate for their inefficiency,
banning impopular products makes no sense and banning popular products makes politicians impopular,
banning is strange in consumer law in being on safe products, that themselves give out no emissions,
banning is a slow bureaucratic expensive procedure examining a lot of products and replacements, compared to taxation based on efficiency labelling to raise money and deal with the emissions problem itself,
banning is more unfair than taxation on emission-free households and countries,
and banning arguments relating to emissions and savings do not hold up, for all the reasons given earlier.
Lighting is only a small part of overall consumption to begin with (15% according to EU Commission figures, much less according to others: see for example USADepartment of Energy 8.8% data), and switchover savings are in turn a fraction of that, as further explained above with factors and data, such as Canadian research figures amounting to only 17% savings of what in turn is only 3% lighting in total household energy use.
So banning inefficient types of boilers, heaters and freezers would have more impact, though still subject to the questions regarding overall savings for efficiency bans, as previously described, and of course the loss of consumer choiceregarding performance, appearance, construction and price
When and if any bans finally did come to light bulbs, they could simply bereclassified for dual purpose light and heat use, given the light-with-heat efficiency as described.
People are emotional as much as rational.
The reality of any ban will only hit them when it arrives.
This is (August 2009) being seen throughout the EU regarding the light bulb ban, extensively reported in media.
As people are forced to switch, some will accept the reasoning given, but few will like it:
Even if people believe the savings arguments they clearly prefer to use ordinary light bulbs anyway.
Bans also paint a negative world, where everyone has to go around and make sacrifices:
Rather than a positive world, that deals with problems themselves, and lets people get on with their lives and use whatever safe products they want to use.
Politicians shouldn't just make decisions based on popularity, but it seems strange to make unnecessary impopular decisions.
If and when people begin to realize that for example the light bulb ban was in fact not necessary, and that politically praised CFLs aren't of good quality or lifespan (and without back up guarantees/warranties), that hardly helps politicians either.
Of course politicians who do not support efficiency based bans can say that to the voters, in future elections.
That light quality is very different from fluorescents and LEDs, also differing from halogens, and should of course remain a choice.
Considerate politicians work with - not against - the people, in achieving emission changes that presumably are for everyone's benefit.
That is why they exist for people to choose.
Monday, 14 September 2009
greetings from the fair city
Introduction: The Politics of Change
Posts
