Green Grundrisse - Illuminating lighting
October 13th, 2009Introduction
After 130 years of everyday use the incandescent light bulb is to be phased out in EU member states. The first step towards this was taken on 1st September when it became illegal for manufacturers and importers to sell incandescent bulbs of ≥100W.
In accordance with the EU Directive on Energy and Lighting 01/09/2009, under the Eco-design of Energy Using Products Directive 2005/32/EC this will be followed up with a ban on 60W incandescent bulbs and spotlights in 2010, a ban on 40W ones in 2011 and a switch to the compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) - known also as the long-life bulb, “bent” fluorescent lamp or energy-saving bulb.
The intention behind the Directive is to reduce power consumption for lighting by an estimated 40TWh and CO2 emissions by an estimated 15 million tons annually throughout the EU by 2020. Clearly then, these are environmental objectives, although even on these the legislation is contradictory;. For example, it avoids the question of electronic waste. It does not encourage wider use of the most efficient lamps. It addresses a relatively small component of overall power consumption. It focuses on a technical fix rather than the underlying causes of so much of the waste of power and of inefficient lighting.
“Bent” versus straight
As with many innovations, the CFL has quite a specific application not a universal one. The bright sparks who devised the CFL at General Electric in 1973 did so primarily in response to the OPEC oil embargo, not environmental problems, and those who worked on the energy saving bulb 30 years ago at the Osram factory in Augsburg were also more concerned about reducing power use. Environmental burdens arising from the use of all lamps, including CFLs, have been externalised for the whole the 130 years that we have had the incandescent bulb. This makes it difficult to accept that the very efficient CFL is necessarily the environmentally sound solution to the wasteful incandescent bulb. The environmentally sound solution is many solutions, such as less artificial lighting, more and ingenious uses of daylight, a whole range of different efficient luminaires and lamps, more efficient non-domestic lighting such as street lighting, improvements in the efficiency of all uses of power, and so on.
Although this is not a contest, indiscriminately promoting the CFL is a bit dim. It is a quick fix that finds its way onto those lists of things to do in order to save energy and the environment. Sometimes though, it is the best thing to quickly achieve a reduction in the use of power for lighting, or to facilitate maintenance. It is more compact than the straight or linear fluorescent lamp, and much more efficient than the incandescent bulb, which is basically a heater rather than a lamp because only 5% - 10% of the power is converted into light, but it is not as efficient as the linear fluorescent lamp.
The contradictions in the EU Eco-Design Regulatory Committee’s approach mount up when the life-cycle of the linear tube is taken into account i.e. procurement, manufacture, use and disposal. Its manufacture for example achieved high efficiencies not equalled in most other sectors. On the other hand the “bent” fluorescent tube that is the main feature of the CFL is trickier to manufacture and has accrued fewer economies of scale during its shorter history.
As for its disposal the advantage of the linear lamp is that machines already exist at specialised recycling centres that effectively recycle the glass and phosphor; but not the mercury vapour. The industry also externalised these costs and independent recyclers now carry out the work, while a disposal levy is imposed on the purchaser (15p per tube in 2009). Each time a spent CFL is disposed of however, the electronic components that are hazardous and toxic with PCBs for example, the 2-5 µg of mercury in vapour form in each lamp plus the reusable materials are consigned to an existing mountain of electronic waste. In the case of a linear fluorescent lamp the components are contained within the luminaire, not the lamp, so that the ballasts, circuitry and starters can be retained for decades of further use with each replacement tube.
There are further problems with the CFL that needed to be addressed before the Directive came into force. They include its:
small range of wattages and limited range of shapes compared to those available for the incandescent bulb; fragility (particularly of lamps of Chinese and Eastern European manufacture); short life compared to that claimed by manufacturers (except for Japanese ones); high and sometimes extortionate price; incompatibility with the huge range of luminaires currently fitted with incandescent bulbs; general incompatibility with dimmers.
More lumens per Watt
The luminous efficacy of the vast range of lamps differs widely according to type, brand and country of manufacture and it is rarely quantified in a way that assists people to make comparisons. We are either left to do the sums after deciphering the blurb on the package or give up because it bears no useful information whatsoever.
Before the EU introduced the efficiency bands A - G one basic datum should have been available many years ago with each lamp, and that is the number of lumens produced per Watt. Had this been the case millions of people would have been able to make comparisons and quick sensible decisions about efficient ways of lighting their homes, or elsewhere. Also they would have realised that:
Different makes of linear fluorescent tubes that are in the lower efficiency bands such as B give ≥25% extra lumens per watt than the best manufacture of CFLs in efficiency band A; Most CFLs emit about 60lu/W although there is a slight increase in efficiency related to an increase in wattage that then tails off with the most powerful lamps; many tungsten halogen lamps are only a little more efficient than incandescent bulbs but not as efficient as CFLs; that there is a slight increase in efficiency of incandescent bulbs related to an increase in wattage that then tails off with the most powerful lamps.
It is not clear why such a basic datum relating to efficiency was not freely and widely available. The electrical industry has an illustrious tradition of applying logic and science to problems but in this instance it did not live up it.
No straight answers
Why then have we been bombarded with deals on CFLs in the last year or so? Part of the reason for this lies in the overly generous concessions made to European energy and power companies to emit directly large quantities of CO2 before being ‘capped’ and monitored as part of the carbon trading scheme. These same companies won their concessions through aggressive and well-funded lobbying in Brussels. They are also able to earn tradable Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) for each tonne of CO2 they indirectly eliminate by sponsoring more wind turbines for example, or promoting CFLs (Linear tubes need a luminaire and would not give quick enough results). Some companies have benefited from the initial, excessively high threshold of permissible CO2 emissions before being capped, which they traded with other polluting companies that were not awarded any dispensations and from trading in ROCs. They were therefore able to boost their profits by billions of Euros while doing little to reduce their CO2 emissions directly.
Power companies in the UK have only lately taken to giving away free CFLs in order to help reduce the power surges that are their most capital-intensive aspect of supply and qualify for ROCs. In their enlightened self-interest American power companies have been giving out CFLs for some time.
Barriers to efficient lighting
The Directive on Energy and Lighting 01/09/2009 pays scant regard to the barriers to achieving greater efficiency in lighting. Some of them are considered below.
a) Abstract labour
The functional essence of a product is masked by the ideology of design, image and marketing. The mass of lighting, lamps, luminaires, shades and diffusers that do not allow illumination testify to this.
The conversion of the whole UK from round pin plugs and sockets to ‘square’ pin ones in the 1950s and 60s that contradicted the geometry of good design and the economy of effort is further evidence.
A parallel from a totally different industry is the promotion of the ‘statement’ tap at the expense of the purely functional tap, with the result that more attention is paid to the ‘statement’ that panders to our psychic weaknesses than to water quality.
The underlying alienation and short-sightedness of people who were connected with these projects highlights the problem of abstract labour, which is now one of the big ‘motors’ of environmental destruction.
b) Mismanagement
Abstract labour is a problem in management circles too. For over a year I tried to get Peabody Trust to turn off outdoor floodlighting during daylight hours. Slight adjustments to sensors and programmers are needed but this proved too much for the managers in at least three departments. The floodlights continue to ‘burn’ during the day, the tenants’ service charge increased and site visits are anathema.
c) The homage to quantity
More, bigger and faster are mantras of political economy that contradict the logic of reducing power consumption in order to reduce carbon emissions and solve environmental problems. Before and after the OPEC oil embargo the pricing mechanism for energy and power rewarded more and more consumption over less. This continues to the present day when the highest level of atmospheric CO2 in human history has been reached - 390ppm.
We are persuaded to buy more and more electrical and electronic goods and at the same time cajoled with slogans to “Switch something off”, “Turn Off”, “Flick the Switch”, “Pull The Plug” and “Turn Off That Extension”. Somehow we are expected to accept this contradiction and maintain a straight face. More importantly it will confuse the question of how we reduce CO2 emissions from coal, gas and oil-fired power plants.
d) Technical barriers
In order to reduce emissions from power stations there are all kinds of technical matters to consider; the power factor at generating stations for example. With some lighting equipment consumption measured at the meter may fall but not CO2 emissions at the power station. There is the vexed question of transmission losses from the national grid that make some power demands for lighting pale into insignificance. Power surges need to be managed with flexibility, change and imagination rather than more technology, for these peaks in demand are a function of spectacular time.
e) Maintenance
The efficacy of a luminaire can be reduced by as much as 43% if it is not cleaned or maintained. Cleaning and maintenance are essential and produce all kinds of bonuses when deployed intelligently. Design ‘statement’ diffusers and shades can reduce the effectiveness of lamps still further; even more so if they are not maintained. But it is also true though that some luminaires are ineffective even when they are maintained because efficiency was never embodied in their design.
Cleaning and maintenance work is not valued and has low social status. Huge numbers of people who perform technical tasks in the multifarious trades connected to the energy and power industries experience the same problem.
f) ‘Competitive’ lighting
A strong indication that something is wrong with the way we use lighting in the urban and industrialised areas of the world is that artificial light is visible at night from outer space. It is glaringly obvious in those images of Earth captured with satellite cameras. Major urbanised areas - even the motorways in Belgium - are discernible, but the brightest location on the planet is Las Vegas where competitive lighting has been part of the course for a long time. The contradiction is that artificial lighting is nearly always needed on earth, a metre or so from our hands and eyes, not up in the atmosphere; up where the air is no longer clear.
This lack of direction in lighting is a meta-metaphor for the inappropriate and irresponsible use of technology that is largely value-driven - ‘spiced’ with a bit of technical ignorance. It contradicts the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2006 that defines excessive light as a statutory nuisance although to help us assess the point at which lighting becomes a light pollution problem we now have a Scale of Darkness from 1 to 9.
Competitive lighting has such purchase in commercial life that even CFLs will lead to more light pollution and wasted power if the lower ‘running’ costs are taken as an opportunity to install more lamps than are necessary in order to compete for business or status.
g) Appearances
The trend in ‘competitive’ lighting does not contradict the modern emphasis on appearances but the fact that any misuse of lighting is highly visible irritates a surprising collection of people. It conspicuousness might well be the real reason for the focus on lighting when it accounts for just <20% of electricity used in buildings and <12.5% of domestic energy (including power) consumption in the UK for example. The huge amount of power used by machines or for transport is not visible, neither is the CO2, waste heat, nor the emissions from the power station and therefore escapes attention.
If the EU were fair about tackling conspicuous waste it would have made a start on the burdens of inefficient street lighting that account for 1.2TWh of electrical power and 566000 tonnes of CO2 annually in the UK. Traffic signals would have been another target.
h) Fashion
For some time there has been a vogue for householders to install tungsten halogen (TH) spots that blitz interiors with light. These TH spots can burn babies’ skins, damage retinas, degrade antiques and old works of art including books and manuscripts, produce heat and create more toxic and hazardous waste. The misapplication of TH lamps is not confined to domestic properties. At one property I worked in, TH spots account for 25% of luminaires, 12% of lumens emitted, but 63% of the power consumed for lighting. Some may perceive tungsten halogen lighting as modern and ‘cool’, but environmentally it is ‘hot’. Improvements in efficiency have been achieved lately with LED and CF spots but this has not altered the fact that a mass of wasteful interior lighting is used for marketing, presentation and security.
i) Policing, security and counter terrorism
Since 1981 the security industries in the UK have grown massively as people’s sense of insecurity has been exploited. Infamous terrorist attacks in recent times exacerbated the situation. A reaction to this is very often the recommendation to install more lighting.
j) Inequalities
There are huge variations in people’s use of power within the UK just as there are between other different societies and countries. My own annual power consumption for a household of four is under 2000kWh, and this includes Mr and Mrs Average’s <12.5% for lighting and appliances. A neighbouring household of the same composition consumes more than this amount of power in one month. Its lighting load is also huge as many rooms are equipped with more lamps than you would normally find in a whole flat or house. This kind of disparity in levels of power use complicates the approach to solving environmental problems because we are not all equally responsible for the ensuing environmental damage although we might all be equally ‘in it up to our necks’. Consequently the demographic explanation for environmental problems such as CO2 emissions and global warming seems simplistic and loses some its credibility.
The precautionary principle
Each new piece of technology or technological transfer brings benefits and opportunities. On the other hand it always introduces new collective responsibilities and challenges. Where new approaches to lighting are concerned the objections to fluorescent lighting per se need to be considered because they represent a further barrier to efficiency. Some of the objections are that:
the light emitted is an unpleasant colour.
it causes headaches and eyestrain.
the luminaires are noisy.
electro-magnetic pollution from the luminaires for fluorescent lamps are a health hazard.
A prudent solution that would meet with widespread support is to use less artificial lighting and more natural light; when and where possible. After all, the quest for more daylight in buildings is already an important thread in the history of architecture and at least this would cause no harm.
Conclusion
The phasing out of inefficient technology is one of the many things that will be necessary in order to deal with environmental problems such as global warming. But there are priorities and the incandescent light bulb does not warrant being at the top of the list. Likewise, the CFL is a useful efficient substitute that does not qualify as the solution.
The bigger picture is provided by our economic system that has outlived its usefulness and causes environmental destruction. “Switch off when you leave” is a demeaning slogan to anyone who realises that:
a good deal of damage is rooted in the problem of abstract labour and the drive for more value.
human relations are distorted by the capitalist system and this causes damage.
people are overloaded with technology.
there is too much reliance on a technological solution. “We have the technology”, as Dr. Who said, but it does not mean we have to use it.
there is too much reliance on more innovation as a solution.
the cherished idea that “Necessity is the mother of invention” is still valid despite the homespun philosophy of political economists.
much innovation is out of ‘synch’ with today’s environmental, social and population imperatives.
There are however those who claim that no other system works, or is even possible, but they must have switched off a long time ago even though they have not left yet.
