The end of a long loved but overlooked item

day by day it becomes more and more sad and obvious. we will ban a very nice part out of our lives. the Light-Bulb invented by Edison. We haven’t found a way to reduce our use of energy and perhaps some were disappointed that they have invested in a new technology but no one wanted to buy it. Now the laws come into play and the normal light bulb will be forbidden. Why wasn’t it possible to find a way in between? You can have all my candles in my room if you leave me one light-bulb for sad winter days.

The actual design scene already is reflecting this change in technology by taking light-bulb shapes and reinterpreting this with new technologies.
This article written in GERMAN by BRAND EINS is a good one about that.

GHTime Code(s): nc 
Posted in Innovation, Technology and tagged , .

4 Comments

  1. That light bulb ban makes no sense -from any perspective…

    Europeans choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (EU and light industry data 2007-8)
    Banning what people WANT gives the supposed savings – no point in banning an impopular product!

    If new LED lights -or improved CFLs- are good,
    people will buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
    If they are not good, people will not buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point) !
    The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio valves were banned… they were bought less anyway.

    All lights have advantages….
    The ordinary simple light bulb has for many people a pleasing appearance, it responds quickly with bright broad spectrum light, is easy to use with dimmers and other equipment, can come in small sizes, and has safely been used for over 100 years.

    100 W+ equivalent brightness is a particular issue – difficult and expensive with both fluorescents and LEDS – yet such incandescent bulbs are first in line for banning in both USA and the EU.

    Energy?
    Since when does Europe need to save on electricity?
    There is no energy shortage.
    Note that if there was an energy shortage, the price rise would make people buy more efficient products anyway – no need to legislate for it.

    Energy security?
    There are usually plenty of local energy sources,
    Middle East oil is not used for electricity generation, 1/2 world uranium exports are from Canada and Australia.

    Consumers – not politicians – pay for the energy used.
    Certainly it is good to let people know how they can save energy and money – but why force them to do it?

    Emissions?
    Most cars have emissions.
    But does your light bulb give out any gases?
    Power stations might not either:
    In France and Sweden practically all electricity is emission-free, while around half of it is in many states.
    Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
    Low emission households will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology or energy substitution.

    Also, the supposed savings can be questioned for many reasons:
    For example, official research (Energy Star, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Berkeley University and other institutions) question the lifespans, brightness, energy usage, and overall usage savings with CFLs
    see http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x
    onwards

    Even for those who remain pro-ban, taxation to reduce consumption would make more sense, since government can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.
    A 1-2 Euro tax that reduces the current 2 billion EU ordinary incandescent bulb sales per annum, still raises future billions, and retains consumer choice.
    Taxation in itself is hardly needed, and wrong for similar reasons to bans – it’s just preferable to bans.

    • Thanks for your comment.

      I do not fully aggree on your point about emission free households because even if the energy is produced in powerplants and even if this is done by nuclearpoweplans they cause an environmental negative impact. Which is not all CO2 but the negative environmental overall system impact is what is important not that the electricity you use is smoke free.

      We have a discussion about taxation on Cars and interestingly the Electric Energy is calculated as ZERO (elevant). So if you would have a gigantique e-motor running in a truck realy sucking the cables dry and letting the powerplants run an extra shift, no one would call you an antistustainable person because „E“ is green.

      The Incandescente discussion points into a different direction.

      I am not to naiv to say that running a state would be easy. and to design things simple and elegant is nearly the hardest work to do. But as we have so so little time to choose the right tool to acchieve a sustainable direction which still has a quite good consequence for living we still tap into our common behaviour to try to make more business out of it than we would need.

  2. Thanks Ralph,
    Of course, as you say, there is an environmental impact to our consumerism,
    which also applies to factories making shirts we like or bakeries making bread we like…

    I suppose my basic point is that where there is a problem – deal with the problem.

    Marginal savings from banning what people want to use is in my view the wrong way, and will just unnecessarily upset more and more people.
    Efficiency demands on products unfortunately changes not only prce, but also other properties: More =
    http://www.ceolas.net/#cc2x

    Supplying energy – with any emission or other criteria that needs to be put on it – is, I believe, the right way.
    http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x

    • Thanks for your further interesting informations on your webside. I will have a look on it.

Kommentar verfassen