From today, the manufacture or import of the 60W filament bulb is no longer permitted across Europe. Opinions obviously differ on whether this is a bold environmental step forward, or an example of nanny state philosophy.
The decision makes me mindful, once again, of the Digest of UK Energy Statistics, or DUKES Report. Published annually by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, it summarises all sources and uses of energy in the United Kingdom.
Broadly, the report illustrates that the UK’s total energy consumption could be divided into three approximately equal groups. The first is transport; the second is heating; the third is everything else. So, if you were to add up the energy used by every light bulb, every computer, every appliance and every machine across the country, the total would equal that used for heating alone.
So, if the decision on European light bulbs is environmentally driven, it can be considered only a small start. Indeed, the question of whether there is a significant environmental benefit to using “energy-saving” bulbs is still debated. Furthermore, the tax on energy for heating in the UK is set around 5%, whereas the tax on petrol and diesel is over 50%. If Europe is so concerned with environmental issues, we would do well to to divert our attention away from how we light our homes and workplaces, and instead onto how we heat them.
I’d have thought the issue was more power related; it’s been known for a while that the UK is running out of power. The maths is simple:
60W bulb – 11W energy saving equiv = 49W saved. Let’s say every house in the country has one light on: 49 x 25,000,000 = 1,225,000,000 Watts. If the output of a nuclear power station is 600MW we’d need: 1,225,000,000 / 600,000,000 = 2 additional nuclear power stations.
I think it’s worth it, to be able to have two less power stations, don’t you?
I do see your point. The missing ingredient in your sum is time, but I’ll assume you mean MWh. The simple sum doesn’t include factors such as the energy cost of production and disposal of the bulbs, energy lost in transmission and distribution, or heat loss (as “energy-saving” bulbs give out less heat, there is research to suggest that people work their heating systems harder to compensate).
But, all the same, imagine how much more energy could be saved if attention were turned to heating instead of lighting. Compared with the “energy-saving” issues regularly brought to consumers’ attention, such as electricity usage for domestic lighting or appliances on standby, the total energy spent on heating is something of an elephant in the room.
As a side-issue, perhaps as a result of these well-known issues, it is common for consumers to confuse “energy” with “electricity”, when in fact the matrix of energy sources and uses is far more complex. The DUKES itself is probably a little daunting for most people, but DECC also publish an easier-to-swallow flow chart.
To further illustrate difference in energy consumption between lighting and heating: according to the latest figures in the publication “Energy consumption in the United Kingdom“, the UK uses over three times as much energy heating space than we do on lighting and appliances.
I think it is interesting that mercury barometers and thermometers were banned in 2008 on health grounds, but mercury CFLs are encouraged. Since mercury vapour (in CFLs) is more hazardous to health than mercury liquid (in thermometers), it does all seem a little odd.