Australia to phase out incandescent bulbs by 2010
By Darren Murph 
posted February 20th 2007 1:08PM
posted February 20th 2007 1:08PM
While some US cities like Raleigh are already planning steps to cut back on energy wastes by converting to more efficient lighting systems, it looks like the entire continent of Australia could be following suit. Claiming to be the "world's first" national government to phase out incandescent light bulbs in favor of the more "fuel-efficient, compact fluorescent bulb," environment minister Malcolm Turnbull is hoping to "cut Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by four million metric tonnes a year by 2015." Citing the "climate changes" the world is facing as a "global challenge," Turnbell also urged other nations to follow suit in making a difference, but didn't exactly open up his personal wallet to stock our households with those uber-pricey bulbs. Interestingly, some environmentalists feel that the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions come from government and business-related activities, which should presumably take priority over swapping out a country's light bulbs. Still, we've got no complaints with hooking homes up with LED / fluorescent options to help Mother Earth, but shouldn't Australia (and America, too) ink its name on the Kyoto Protocol before getting all high and mighty about saving the planet?
"uber pricey light bulbs" -
I use lightbulbs like that that I bought from IKEA.
They really aren't that expensive... this isn't that "LED-bulb" we're talking about.
Some of us are adversely affected by fluorescent lighting. Personally speaking, prolonged exposure to strong overhead fluorescent lighting (out of the corner of my eye, for example) gives me a blinding (no pun intended) headache. Seem to be okay with LEDs though.
I guess this kind of thing doesn't happen in Australia? Calling Professor Xavier...
So in order to save money by using less energy, or by using more energy efficient devices, a country must first comply with a treaty?
Kudos for Australia, even though their 'cited' reason is purely conjecture, and not backed with any understanding of the climate model and conditions that have persisted on this earth for billions of years.
Flourescent lighting is nice, LED lighting is even nicer in some instances, a step in the right direction.
They're hardly "uber-pricey", Australia isn't being "high and mighty", and being a Kyoto signatory doesn't mean much when signing countries aren't meeting targets.
I'm pretty sure no countries had standards to meet until the end of 2007...at least, that is what I said in my project on Kyoto...I hope I wasn't wrong...
I've been seeing a lot of jabber about flourescents and how countries states and cities are planning to force users to get rid of incandescents.
While the concept is certainly tempting, as with any sweeping generality, isn't it a little short sighted? Not all incandescents are created equal, and the same holds for flourescents and even LED lights.
1) I use flourescents whenever possible, but many brands and types have that bothersome flicker. This can cause headaches that can easily be avoided using incandescents.
2) Many flourescents contain toxic substances like mercury gas that are bad for the environment when disposed of, and can be harmful to people if the bulbs are broken.
3) Flourescents also typically use a lot more glass than incadescents. I don't know what environmental impact that has, but insiting on their use without considering it (which appears to be the case here) seems short sighted.
4) Incandescents give off heat, whereas most flourescents don't. Sometimes that heat is desireable.
5) What is the failure rate of flourescents? depending on brand, I have seen some less expensive flourescents (and some of the priciest full spectrum lights) go out almost as fast as incandescent bulbs.
6) What of long life incandescents? I have used some bulbs that have lasted for 3 or 4 years. That's a pretty long time.
7) Finally, and this effects me the most, flourescents give off typically a different color and quality of light. I record video, and while there are flourescent bulbs out there that have the correct color temps, those systems typically are a lot more expensive because the flicker has to be compensted for. So what would I do?
In my mind, the answer isn't an abrubt phase out. The answer is to increase the longevity requirements for incandescents, and perhaps to tax them, to pay for development of things like LED and OLED lighting. That kind of lighting lasts a very long time, doesn't have the flicker issue, and can be any color desired.
But it seems to me tht there would always be a place for a small niche of incandescents. The solution to all the worlds consumption problems is not to make the things we dislike illegal. At worst, perhaps a government could switch to one type of bulb to set an example and bring down price by increasing a market. But prohibition? It didn't work with alcohol, it won't work with other goods, either.
Australia is a country, not a continent.
I like the decision, though. Hopefully Philips will start rocking some of those flasy LED bulbs we sw back in 04/05.
Sorry Karl, but Australia is a continent. I live there. I would know. But alas, it also is a country. We are a lucky island continent/country, but we usually call ourselves a continent because it sounds better. I mean what other country can claim it is a continent also? Theres a few but i'm too tired to think right now. Post a reply of some if you like. Personally I think its the right idea, but I think the LED/OLED bulb may have been a smarter alternative. Either way, the bill is designed to open up alternatives, not just to flogg off CFLs, so hopefully the energy saving market will boom after this, and our non-kyoto signing arse will be spared from the firey depths of hell :)
And now to cut energy from industry and gov't departments......
ok, my bad.
But then, what continent is New Zealand in? I always thought the two together were Australasia (called Oceania by the Americans).
New Zealened isnt in a continent as such. It is a seperate island
the thing is, ALL fluorescent lightbulbs (including compact fluorescents) contain mercury, which is possibly just as bad for the environment. there is ongoing research being performed to develop solid state lighting, which contains no mercury and still runs cold to the touch. just give it a few years, it's being developed by mitsubishi as we speak.
If your house is powered by a coal plant, you're causing more mercury emission by running an incandescent light than you would by running a mercury-containing CFL (including emission from powering the CFL and the mercury in the CFL itself). The mercury in the CFL's also a lot easier to isolate.
Actually Karl, most elementary schoolers would be glad to inform you Australia is indeed the only country that is also its own continent.
If I missed some weak sarcasm intending to demean Australia...my bad.
On topic, I think that this is a perfectly rational idea that will make a small but useful impact. Once you phase out the sale of incandescents, the rapidly increased demand will result in much cheaper fluorescents, which shouldn't be a problem.
Unfortunately, elementary students are often wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_%28continent%29
"The Australian continent is the smallest and lowest-lying of the Earth's continents, having a total land area of some 8,560,000 square kilometres. Though the Commonwealth of Australia occupies much of the continent and is often mistaken for being the entire continent, Australia and adjacent islands are connected by a shallow continental shelf covering some 2,500,000 square kilometres including the Sahul Shelf[2][3] and Bass Strait and half of which is less than 50 metres deep.
As Australia the country is largely comprised of a single island, and comprises most of Australia the continent, it is sometimes informally referred to as "the island continent", especially for marketing purposes. [4] Pedagogic simplification also results in many school children being taught that the continent and the country are synonymous, resulting in the misconception being perpetuated."
Living in NYC we pay about $.20 per kwh - almost 3 times what some other places in the country pay. Swapping out regular bulbs for CFs saved me a bundle on my electric bills, and a multi-pack from HomeDepot comes in pretty cheap. My only complaint so far is that dimmable versions of CF bulbs are a) hard to find b) cost an arm and a leg. Otherwise I am sold on CFs - color was hard to take at first, but now prefer it.
Total watts before CF = 840
Total watts after CF = 182
The lightbulbs are an expensive upfront investment, however they pay for themselves (in energy savings) after a few years (because I forget the actual figure, I will omit it). Also, this is just plain the "right" thing to do. More countries need to start with these (relatively) small energy saving initiatives. Though individually small, our actions will be collectively significant. The US needs to get on-board with something like this!
James...
Country of Australia = Continental Australia + Tasmania
=> Country of Australia != Continental Australia
Can fluorescents be dimmed? My whole house has dimmer switches, and I'd never give that up :)
I think Australia is off the mark. The world should keep following the Kyoto protocol by sending billions of dollars to China each month for a piece of paper that says "Carbon Credit - The Right to Pollute" and helping China fund its oppression of Tibet, ICBM program and nuclear weapons program.
I wonder what Thomas A. Edison would think of this?
Lol yeah Australasia is made up of Australia, New Zeland, New Guniea and a few neighbouring islands. Co-incidently, it is a part of Oceania however, which adds to the list Melanesia, Polynesia, Micronesia. These small island groups are technically a mix of French, British, USA, New Zeland and Australian 'owned' (for lack of a better word) territories. Anyway, most NZ people hate it when they are accidently called Aussies, because they are sheep rooters hehe
Saving engergy is great and all but man-made global warming is the biggest scam since the population bomb, global cooling and peak oil.
This is good and bad. There are some situations in which an incandescent is a better solution than fluorescent, such as a bathroom light that is turned on and off constantly and are only on briefly. I don't know what will fill that gap, since LED bulbs aren't nearly there yet. There's always metal halide lamps for those that have problems with fluorescents, but I don't know how easy to find those are.
koyoto protocol is a horrible solution. check this video out for more information
http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=b_lomborg
im not sure of why the USA didnt sign the kyoto protocol but you might consider the possibility that the reason isnt for purely selfish reasons.
does this idiot really impress you?
doesn't austria have loads of baron sun drenched land? couldn't they just set up a giant solar power farm? this would be taking the problem to it's roots instead of just one of the contributing factors.
Please don't call my country "Austria".
Perfect symbolism. The environmentalist movement-- anti-progress, anti-technology, and anti-human--outlaws one of the most historically significant inventions: the light bulb.
What's next, the wheel?
Aaa... what?
Are you stupid or what?
Cheese
I think getting the solar power from Europe to AustrALIA may be a little cost prohibitive ;-)
chasing, I disagree. If australia (and america) can't even commit to signing the protocol, why should they be allowed to make suggestions to the rest of the world?
...and my god, people. continent or country. it's because of people like you that teachers like mine still don't like it when I research off the internet.
We've been replacing our incandescents with fluorescents but noticed the fluorescents don't work in every situation. For instance, outside flood lights/security light on a motion sensor and those on a light sensor (that turn a light on when it's dark) reduce the life of fluorescents dramatically. In most cases we got a matter of a few days use out of them before they stopped working. The manufacturer says they won't work with motion and light sensors.
And what about freezer lights? My CF's don't work well in the cold.
Ugh, I wish you would have just left that last comment out. I prefer my gadget news sans political commentary if you please. I won't bother to point out the problems with Kyoto, as others already have.
"1) I use flourescents whenever possible, but many brands and types have that bothersome flicker. This can cause headaches that can easily be avoided using incandescents."
This is true; there is a *big* variation in the quality of CFL's from manufacturer to manufacturer. Worse still, some of the worst CFL's are made by some of the biggest manufacturers (or are at least sold by them). In my house, I have some decent CFL's and some awful CFL's - I keep the awful ones in places like the basement and attic.
"2) Many flourescents contain toxic substances like mercury gas that are bad for the environment when disposed of, and can be harmful to people if the bulbs are broken."
The idea is you don't dispose of them very often. Most CFL's will last ten years, and the harm to the environment is much less than powering an incandescent bulb with a coal or oil power plant.
"3) Flourescents also typically use a lot more glass than incadescents. I don't know what environmental impact that has, but insiting on their use without considering it (which appears to be the case here) seems short sighted."
The difference in the amount of glass is pretty negligible. And glass is made of sand, and there are environmentally-friendly ways of making it anyway.
It's kind of like saying a double-paned window is less environmentally friendly than a single-paned window just because it uses twice as much glass, even though the double-paned window saves a lot more energy. It's a more than worthwhile tradeoff. The extra glass doesn't really matter at all, because the point is to *reduce* your overall environmental footprint, not *eliminate* it. CFL's aren't going to turn us all into treehuggers. They're just better for the environment than incandescents, because they're more efficient. That doesn't mean they have no impact at all, just less of one.
"4) Incandescents give off heat, whereas most flourescents don't. Sometimes that heat is desireable."
It's about the least efficient way of generating heat you could think up. It would be far more efficient to just turn up your thermostat one or two degrees than to run a bunch of incandescents solely or even partially for the purposes of heat. It's always better to use any item for the purpose for which it was designed, because it's going to be the most efficient when used in that way. You wouldn't use an electric heater for light, would you? Then why use a light bulb for heat?
"6) What of long life incandescents? I have used some bulbs that have lasted for 3 or 4 years. That's a pretty long time."
You're still not saving any energy. You're still running 100 watts and getting about 15 watts worth of light out of it.
"7) Finally, and this effects me the most, flourescents give off typically a different color and quality of light. I record video, and while there are flourescent bulbs out there that have the correct color temps, those systems typically are a lot more expensive because the flicker has to be compensted for. So what would I do?"
I don't think anybody is suggesting replacing professional lighting systems with fluorescent bulbs. Tungsten lighting systems will always exist, but these are specialized bulbs for specialized uses.
All that said, I'm still not ready to replace every single incandescent bulb in my house with a CFL. I have a few, and that's probably all I'm going to ever have until forced. I still find the light harsh (even "soft white" CFL's of good quality), and honestly my electric bill has gone *up* since installing them. (Not the CFL's fault, obviously, but the point is they don't magically reduce your overall electric usage. For a lot of people, lighting is only a small part of their overall bill.)
I don't think CFL's are the answer to efficient lighting, honestly. As you can tell by my answers above, I understand the reasoning behind using them, but I think the real solution is going to have to involve more pleasing light that people are actually going to want to use. Maybe that will eventually be LED. LED is not there yet, but maybe someday it will be - and it's already even more efficient than CFL (it's just not bright enough when diffused, or available in enough color variations). But if not LED, it'll be something else. But I don't see CFL's ever really going mainstream in this country because they're just ugly light compared to incandescents (or halogen, which is even more pleasing light but no better environmentally).
Fluorescent lights already are mainstream in Japan, FWIW, and it drives me crazy whenever I'm there. Their houses could be so beautiful, but they always look so drab and ugly inside because of the lighting.
"4) Incandescents give off heat, whereas most flourescents don't. Sometimes that heat is desireable."
"It's about the least efficient way of generating heat you could think up. It would be far more efficient to just turn up your thermostat one or two degrees than to run a bunch of incandescents solely or even partially for the purposes of heat. It's always better to use any item for the purpose for which it was designed, because it's going to be the most efficient when used in that way. You wouldn't use an electric heater for light, would you? Then why use a light bulb for heat?
I don't think the original poster was referring to actually heating a house with a lightbulb... but situations like, outdoor lamp posts in the winter. the heat of the bulb will melt the snow off. I think I read a post about this in cars - some manufacturer had developed LED headlights that were almost as effective as halogens, but because they hardly produced any heat, ice and snow accumulated quickly so a heater needed to be added. Besides the issues with differences in color temperature, There are many products out there that don't operate properly on anything but incandescents. Good luck getting your lava lamp working... and a 100 watt fluorescent wont work very well in your kid's easy bake oven.
Jeff, I lived in Japan for 3 years and was very frustrated that I couldn't find an incandescent bulb or a light fixture to take it anywhere. I'm sure the net savings in electricity is huge but, as you said, the quality of light in people's homes is very poor. Does anyone know why the Japanese uniformly use fluorescents everywhere? Did the government play some role in getting their population to switch over?
"Then why use a light bulb for heat?"
You've never allowed your bread dough to rise in an oven with the light on, then.
Or used an incandescent light bulb to create an environment for germinating seedlings.
I could go on, but the point is, incandescence is low tech but useful. Don't support government making your decisions for you.
The Kyoto Protocol has been proven that it will not reduce emmisions enought to have a significant impact on helping our environment. It's a simple question then, why sign something that isnt gonna do us any good. Now I do believe in global warming and all of that, not a denyer, but the countries who didnt sign it, did so because it didnt make a difference if they did or not.
I'm from Oz and despite it's stated reasons our government didn't support Kyoto because it didn't believe global warming was caused by human activity.
After trying every fluroescent bulb out there, at every price, I've come to a simple conclusion: no matyter how it's packaged, fluorescent light sucks the life out of me, and everything it touches.
I decided to stick with incandescent bulbs, but also that I would get as much light per watt as possible, with as little waste as possible. I now use use nothing but GE Edison long-life halogen bulbs. They put a small halogen element into standard form factors.
It's the purest light I've ever seen from a bulb; amazingly bright and damn close to sunlight. It actually contributes to my state of mind, rather than depressing me. I also can't remember the last time I replaced one.
They're a little pricey, but the difference is staggering.
Matt,
Halogens are nice, but if you want light that has been purposely designed for the human eye, try an Ott-Lite.
They're high efficiency, reduce eye strain, full spectrum, improve mood and vitality, plants like them too.
Try an Ott-Lite for a week, for reading or etc, and you'll likely never go back to anything else.
do you have an argument or just ad hominem?
so what does this proposed policy mean for stage lights, halogen light fittings, flood lights, etc...?
If fluorescents were a replacement for everything, I could understand it. But they're not.
Hope a nice recycling scheme is implemented for all the wasted fluorescents polluting the environment far more than incandescents could ever hope to.
(better yet, I hope for better lighting to replace compact fluorescents)
1. New fluorescent bulbs are not the same awful blue shade of light that bothers so may people (including myself) It went through a few different brands but, the Home depot bulbs in the Green packaging look almost exactly like regular bulbs.
2. Problems still are there.
a. They start out dim and get brighter over time in cold rooms. My outside lights take about 5 minutes to reach full strength
b. you can't dim them or even put them into dim able sockets.
Uber-pricey? WTF? Go to costco/sams club and you can buy a pack of 8 for $10. That's a measely 1.25 per lightbulb. I've replaced most of the lights in my home with them as they simply last so much longer that I'm not stuck climbing up a ladder to swap lightbulbs once a year.
here in Asia everyone's using fluorescents - horrible white light, not nearly as warm as incandescent. Nevertheless people use them because every peasant in Asia knows that the total cost over the lifetime of the lamp is far below incandescent lighting. Calling these expensive is silly.
That said, there are fluorescents that have warm light. But the real solution will be LED lighting especially the sort where you can set the color temperature.
I am hoping Australia is going to implement this because it will lower the costs and spur research for alternatives. In any case, they should have made a law that defines lumen/watt not a technology like "incandescent". The goal is to save electricity, isn't it?
Where I live (a large regional city in Australia - Wollongong), all traffic lights are starting to have their lights replaced by LEDs. The result is amazing, the red, amber and green is far brighter and much easier to see (not that it wasn't already easy, but it's far more noticeable now). This means we're saving on energy and the lights don't have to be replaced anywhere near as often. To my surprise, this has all happened without much fanfare, I've hardly heard anything about it till now - I was just driving one day and thought to myself, "hey, those lights are a lot brighter than before..!" :-)
Yeah I first noticed the change in those portable traffic lights they use for road works! Then our own town got them it was like wow. Our town is bumpkin as we live like 5 hours south from you, Merimbula.
Great point about Kyoto. If only stephen harper could get his act together about it.
Also very valid points regarding mercury and more glass. Glass does not have a very clean manufacturing process at all, and that should never be forgotten. What the government of Australia should be doing is promoting less usage of lights in general, ie. an office building after hours: why have it lit up like a roman candle?
And to the idiot a couple posts above: Australia is both a country and a continent, make sure you know what the fuck you're talking about before correcting somebody.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent
Kudos to the country (and continent.. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/as.html) of Australia for taking the initiative to reducing energy consumption rather than just sitting there "talking" about the energy crisis. So many environmental problems could be solved if we simply reduced energy consumption. A perfect example of this is the new Adobe building (http://news.com.com/2300-11746_3-6157708-1.html?tag=ne.gall.pg) Funny how no one is complaining about frequent headaches and other problems with fluorescent lighting considering that about 85% of all lighting in US commercial buildings is fluorescent, not incandescent. Unfortunately, bulb manufacturers do not want you to buy fluorescent bulbs, as Wal-Mart knows all too well. Wal-Mart wants to aggressively promote fluorescent bulbs in its stores, much to the objection of bulb manufacturers who argue that a push to fluorescent will greatly decrease their profits. Sell longer-lasting bulbs and people will buy less often, plain and simple.