Though Thomas Edison is usually cited as the father of the light bulb, it's more accurate to give Edison credit as the creator of the first commercially viable light bulb. As early as 1820, inventors were honing in on the principles that would lead to the first electric illumination.
An English inventor, Joseph Swan, took their early work and developed the basis of the modern electric light bulb in 1879 — a thin paper or metal filament surrounded by a glass-enclosed vacuum. When electricity runs through the filament, the light bulb glows.
Edison refined the design, trying filaments made out of platinum and cotton before eventually settling on carbonized bamboo, capable of burning for more than 1200 hours. With Edison's design — and settlement of a lawsuit with Swan that resulted in the two inventors joining forces in 1883 — electric lighting became viable for the first time.
Incandescent Bulb Banned in EuropeEuropeans bid farewell to the 100 watt bulbs today. From now on, Edison's brainchild can no longer be legally made in, or imported into, the European Union, thanks to a European Union-wide ban which kicks off today.
Shed a tear, but don't let your sentimentality tempt you into smuggling one into the EU under your jumper: you'll be hit with a £5,000 fine. That's the price for individuals caught transgressing the ban but companies will face unlimited fines.
The EU hopes that the ban on incandescent light bulbs will force businesses and consumers to invest in low-carbon Light Emitting Diodes and Compact Fluorescent Lamps, which use up to 80 per cent less energy.
The ban could save the EU anywhere from 15 to 53 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, says Matt Prescott, founder of the Ban the Bulb campaign.
Posts
Nice about the history...
ReplyDeleteWhy does the ban make no sense
-from any perspective?
Europeans, like Americans, choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 8-9 times out of 10
(light industry data 2007-8)
Banning what people want gives the supposed "great savings for the people"
– 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.
Supposed savings don’t hold up for many reasons:
(http://www.ceolas.net#li13x onwards
about brightness, lifespan, power factor, lifecycle, heat effect of ordinary bulbs, and other referenced research)
Effect on Electricity Bills:
To the extent energy use does fall with light bulb and other proposed efficiency bans,
electricity companies make less money,
and they’ll simply push up the electricity bills to compensate
(especially since power companies often have their own grids with little supply competition)
Energy regulators can hardly deny any such cost covering exercise...
Energy?
There is no shortage of energy anyway:
People -not politicians – pay for energy use, and if there was an energy shortage, the price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products anyway – no need to legislate for it.
Emissions?
Does a light bulb give out any gases?
Power stations might not either:
Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
Low emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway
through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.
A direct way to deal with emissions (for all else they contain too, whatever about CO2):
http://ceolas.net/#cc10x
Too slow in lowering emissions?
The Taxation alternative
A ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.
We are not talking about banning lead paint here.
Even for those who remain pro-ban,
a temporary taxation to reduce consumption would make much more sense, since governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.
A few euros/dollars tax that reduces the current sales (EU like the USA 2 billion sales per annum, UK 250-300 million pa)
raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.
It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.
http://ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html
When power station emissions are low enough, taxation is lifted.
However, taxation is itself unjustified:
It is simply better than bans also for ban proponents, in emission or energy lowering terms.