Tuesday Feb 20 05:00 AEDT
By ninemsn staff

Australia is set to become the first country in the world to stop using the cheap standard light bulb, with the federal government expected today to announce a commitment to phasing out inefficient incandescent light within three years.

The ambitious plan, set to be unveiled by Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull, aims to have every Australian home lit by compact fluorescent light by 2009-10.

Replacing the old bulb is expected to cut annual greenhouse gas emissions by 800,000 tonnes, the Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Under increasing pressure to deal with climate change, the Howard government is set to use this plan as an example of Australia's commitment to solving the problem of global warming.

But will the plan be effective? Australia's emissions in 2004 totalled 564.7 million tonnes. The 800,000 saved is barely 1/700 of the total released.

Phasing out the old 40-cent bulbs will also cost Australians more, with fluorescent light generally several times more expensive than the standard option.

But Colin Goldman, the head of lighting importer Nelson Industries, told the Herald he supports the move.

"These days you can buy a six-pack at the $10 mark," he said. "The prices are coming down, and as soon as you get volume with greater numbers on the market they come down further."

Goldman said compact fluorescents were available that offered a range of light for use within households.

Compact fluorescent lights use only 20 percent as much electricity as standard light bulbs to produce the same amount of light, according to the federal government.

The idea of changing the light was also proposed in California last month, branded the "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act".
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=228217

I wonder if anyone has considered that the compact fluorescent lamps themselves are not very "earth friendly" - they contain mercury and circuit boards with solder and electronic components. Hmmm........

I think the whole thing is a big joke.

Peter

I wonder how many people will find out the hard way, that you can't run a fluorescent lamp on a dimmer either?.
There goes the mood lighting concept......

The same thing is proposed here in California, Nature Nazis strike again. I use CFLs/Frosty bulbs but it is by my choice.

I'm getting sick and tired off politicians telling us what to do and what we can't do.

It's my business weather i use inefficient 60 cents lightbulbs or $3 compact fluro's or $20 led lamps.
I pay the powerbill, not them, which has already enough tax and overpriced unit rate in it anyway.
All generating stations are government owned with inflated power tariffs, hence the ripped off consumer as end user, after the so called privatisation and cheaper power tariffs.

CFL bulbs cost about 20 times more than a cheap incandescent. Assuming competitive market forces, this indicates the material acquisition, energy, and labor to create these wonders is roughly 20 times that of an incandescent. Material acquisition, energy input, and bringing in a labor force to build stuff all equal pollution. It seems with CFLS, like hybrid cars (to some extent), we are just doing more of the polluting up front and at the end of life. I suppose that's fine, IF they last 20+ times longer AND very few break during shipping, installation, and infant mortality. Maybe the newest generation of bulbs are better, but I've found about half of the CFLs I've bought over the past ten years have not lasted 5 years (infant mortality being the big one). Is it fair to say that a typical incandescent bulb under average household use lasts maybe a year and a half? I'd love to find some data showing how long a CFL MUST last to outweigh the process pollution (minus energy saved).

I'm not sure, but I think I'm a skeptic...

I suppose we wont see any more of these then The 100 year old light bulb

No doubt when they introduce that idea to the UK they will try out in Scotland first

I think we will see some investment in LEDs for domestic lighting. I know that by altering the voltage you can increase the light out-put (but shortens the life span) so perhaps these could be an alternative for "mood" lighting.

I can see where you coming from about the waste problem. Just a short term fix for a long term problem. I said the same about windfarms, what happens to all that fiberglass in 25 years time?

I have some mis-givings about some brands of CFL lamps.
I posted a thread here sometime last year about a neighbour of mine that had one of her lamps nearly catch fire.
What I am more concerned about, was the fact that this brand of lamp is one of the cheapest on the local market, now people will go for the cheaper brand of lamp, naturally to save money.
I would tend to hope that the lamp manufacturers have addressed this issue with overheating, otherwise we will start to have the same thing happening in houses that we had when recessed downlights and dichroic fittings became prevalent in domestic installations.
The onus is on the manufacturers to prove that thier product is safe to operate for what could be an extended period.
Ever felt the body of a CFL lamp after it has been running for a while?.
They get as hot as a standard incandescent lamp, even though the actual lamp glass stays relatively cool.
I would hate to think that any reduction in energy usage would be at the cost of the users safety.

Message copied from a second thread on this topic, from aussie240:

I'm with you all. I do not want to see the end of the regular bulb, and I am getting increasingly fed up with the way the government is trying to dictate what I use or do not use, especially when the arguments they're using are often based on half-truths or just outright incorrect information.

Has anyone behind the fawning press coverage stopped to think what's going to happen with all those fancy decorative light fixtures that only take incandescent bulbs?

A lot of fixtures are going to have to be changed out (and thrown out) when owners find out the larger CFLs can't fit the space of the old lightbulb. That and they just won't LOOK right.

Good point Sven,
How is the Xmas tree going to look with heaps of CFL lamps on it?

Trumpy,

Well I've seen new sets that use LEDs instead of standard bulbs. The trees in the lobby of my job's building had them this year.

In this application it could be a definite advantage, seeing as the little Christmas-light string bulbs are so short lived anyway.

Aussie bulb ban sparks UK interest

From correspondents in London
February 22, 2007 11:26pm
Article from: AAP

AUSTRALIA'S move to phase out standard light bulbs has prompted UK campaigners to ask: why can't Britain do the same?

The Guardian newspaper's Leo Hickman pointed out the decision to ban incandescent light bulbs, announced by Australian Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull this week, was taken in a country that refuses to sign the Kyoto protocol enforcing targets for reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

“Isn't it rather embarrassing that a country as ungreen as Australia is showing up Britain?” he asked.

Ban the Bulb campaign founder Matt Prescott has been lobbying for Britain to introduce tax breaks on fluorescent bulbs, meaning manufacturers could make them cheaper for consumers.

But the British Government has rejected the suggestion, saying European Union rules prevent single states from altering Value-Added Tax rates without the consensus of all member states.

“How are you going to get consensus from 20-odd countries on this?” the paper quoted Dr Prescott as saying.

“If relying on the EU means this issue is delayed, then we should just take a stand as a country. We take them on over much harder issues than this.

“It's great to see Australia has a can-do approach ... in the UK we seem to have a can't-do approach that means you have to solve every conceivable problem or petty quibble before committing to action.”
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21272688-1702,00.html

Huh?

I don't think it's any secret that I hate the EU and its bloated, dictatorial bureaucracy, but that doesn't sound right.

As I understand it we're not allowed under the V.A.T. rules to simply exempt something from the tax, but we can set the actual rate charged at whatever we like.

For example, the U.K. has a standard rate of 17.5%, and a reduced rate of 5% on domestic fuel. Ireland has a higher standard rate of 20 or 21%, but they apply a reduced rate on a much wider range of domestic repairs.

Most EU countries charge a reduced rate on food, but the U.K. and Ireland make no charge. (We weren't allowed to make food exempt as such, but there was nothing to stop us setting the V.A.T. rate at 0%!).

I suspect this one might be another example of a government which doesn't want to lose an opportunity to collect tax and is trying to pass the blame. Unless the V.A.T. rules have changed recently, that is.

As Norcal has mentioned, various "energy codes" are being implemented here that effectively do the same thing ... with California mis-leading the way ... as usual.

When I submit plans to the local authorities these days, I am required to use a US Govt. program to analyze the lighting loads, and this program is heavily biased in favor of fluorescent lighting.

It is ironic that Australia is making the headlines, over what is essentially 'old news' here. Even a popular talk-show host, Rush Limbaugh, has diverted from the usual political chat to delve into this nonsense.

My home is 100% fluorescent lighting, of which only six of the bulbs are NOT replacements for standard bulbs. This is my choice, for which I have my reasons. I cannot agree with mandating this, as a matter of law, though.

I'm going to go off-topic here for a moment and if Paul or C-H want to edit/delete my comments that is OK with me.
I was in the unfortunate position recently where my Firearms licence, Explosives licence, Drivers licence, Passport all expired in the same week.
Now, the Government has made a fair profit from me over the last week.
My firearms licence is "good" until September, but I thought I would get in early and make sure that there was an overlap considering it takes a while for the licence to be made (it has your photo on it, which takes time to actually make the card).
Upon applying for a new licence I was told that the licence period has been reduced to 5 years and will cost NZ$175, the original licence I have lasted 10 years and cost me $75.
Also I will be subject to a police inspection of the storage of my firearms and ammunition, that doesn't worry me at all, I have nothing to hide from the police, what does annoy me is the increase in fees, are the general public any safer from criminals that don't have firearms licences?.
I went and saw OSH here about my Explosives licence, lo and behold, the licence is issued yearly these days, when it used to be a 5 year licence and cost $235, now however, it costs $355, I was also told that I would have to re-apply for this licence as my old (but still current) licence was now null and void and I would have to apply under the "New" system.
My Drivers licence did actually expire, as was pointed out to me when I was stopped by one of our local constabulary(sp?), I went into our local agent for the LTSA underwent the eyetest and got a new licence, I got home and had a look at the card and it had me as a female and half of the endorsements I have were missing.
Went back and was told that I have to pay more to have them on there, I disagreed, the lady wasn't very happy but I got what I was after.
All told the new licence cost me $138.
Now, the passport, I wrote (yes, wrote) to the Ministry of Internal Affairs back in January about the expiration of my passport, last week I got a reply, it told me that because of terrorists, I would have to fill out a whole heap of forms and submit a picture of myself and a few other things, the forms themselves were like sitting an exam, they basically wanted to know everything about me and my movements in the last 10 years, and also that of my partner or other person living in my house.
One thing I disagree with is the last page of the form where you have to indicate your annual income, I don't think that that is appropriate, sure if it was an IRD form yes, but the MIA?.
At this end of the week guys, I feel beauraucratically(sp?) raped.
So much money and so little to show for it.

{Edit:It's Practicing Licence year here as well, thankfully work pays for them}

[This message has been edited by Trumpy (edited 02-23-2007).]

Sounds like we're going to ban incandescants here in NZ too. I love my incandescant lights, but if shifting to CFLs is better for the planet ( Is it ?) then I'll comply.

My only beef is..........

Why isn't our government also banning gas guzzling SUVs ?

Big 4WD vehicles should be limited to those that need them ( Farmers, Fishermen etc.)

You don't need a 6 cylinder 4WD to get from Remuera to Queen St.

I bet that was interesting! I can just imagine Rush's views on this!

Mike,
I understand your frustrations. We're seeing a similar increase in bureaucracy here. From this April new applicants for a passport are going to be required to attend a formal interview, and that's going to be extended to renewals as well within a couple of years. The price is also going through the roof, and of course this is due to be tied in to the new "Big Brother" national ID database. I'm going to make sure I get my passport renewed for another 10 years before all that comes in.

As for asking your income, I'd tell them it's none of their business and leave that entry blank.

Driver licenses? Don't talk to me about the British DVLA (Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency). Totally inept and incompetent just about sums up that department.

My vehicle license is due the end of this month. Another £175 into government coffers for what is jokingly referred to as the "Road Fund Licence." (On top of the 300% tax on fuel.) Except for the main highway, none of the roads around my local area seem to have had any maintenance for years. Rough surfaces and potholes are becoming the order of the day. Pretty soon we'll need Sherman tanks, nevermind 4x4s!


[This message has been edited by pauluk (edited 02-25-2007).]

I gradually changed over all of the incandescent lights in my parents' house when I was still living with them, starting some 8 (maybe even 10) years ago. Although there were some problems with the first generation type that simply used a PL-7 CFL lamp in a cheap Type A ballast/holder, none of the newer "spiral" type have been replaced. They were even transfered to their new house 4 years ago. While the older spiral types are slightly larger than a standard sized bulb, the newest ones are much smaller. There are also dimmable CFLs, although they are still rather expensive. The only place they still use incandescents are the lights at the end of the driveway, which are the clear type in some old lantern-style fixtures where the bulbs are clearly visible.

The only problem I've seen with LED christmas lights, is that they need a decent reflector, otherwise you end up with a string of narrow colored spots.

Did I mention that I haven't changed a light bulb in 8+ years? I would have forgotten how to change one, if I didn't do it during my routine work. If you buy the decent kind of CFLs, they are waranteed to last a certain number of years, so it's no extra cost to you if they do go out.

Now Europe has decided to ban incandescent bulbs too. 'Course, no discussions with us poor saps who don't live in grace and favor residences and that actually have to buy bulbs and pay for our electricity. A recent BBC survey showed all Gummint offices in London ablaze with light with all the staff long home abed. One new Gummint building had all the lights on, even though the builders are still working on it and had all buggered off home at 3.30. The Home Office even managed somehow to increase its energy use by 40% in one of the mildest UK winters since the Romans.

Luckily for me, the French will tell Brussels to get discomknotterificated as usual, so I'm not fussed.

Alan

Aren't 12V and 230V dichroics and Tungsten Halogen lamps incandescent as well?.
Look at all the shop diplay lighting around the place, that seem to burn 24/7.
And if you want to get really silly, what about all the PAR 38 lamps used in security lights?.

Sounds like the district council office here. The floodlights are blazing on the outside even during the brightest summer day.

Do as we say, not as we do........

[Satire is not politics!]
Exactly, Paul! It used to pee me right off when I lived in England and went to our luxurious new Town Hall, lit up like Trinity Rock Lighthouse 24/24. Council "officers" wading about knee-deep in luxury wool carpets, the heating on full blast, a full-size Otis lift in a 2 storey building{!!}, every possible light on, extravagence no object. Four staff on duty behind the "greeting" desk, [ 2 asleep on standby, one for the telephone. "Have you got an appointment Sir? Our Mr Stalinton is very busy at the moment, he can give you 2 minutes, a week next Thursday when he gets back from looking at the Town's new paving slabs in S. Portugal." ( nb. The Forest of Dean has a local quarry & stone sawyers' Works 3 miles up the road ) ]. Planning Officers straight out of NKVD Training School- [ "The answer is niet ...er... no, what is the question, comrade?" ].
The idea that these profligates, who's idea on saving energy would be to fly a 20 person fact-finding mission 13000 miles to Western Samoa to find out how to do it, is laughable. If they had to fit low-energy bulbs, their response would be to get 1000% more lampholders installed so they don't use less electricity, on the basis that if they reduce costs their budgets will get cut!
Rant over, cleared for landing!

Alan

Or there was the one where to see how our Continental cousins do things, councillors went on a fact-finding mission to the "typical" French department of Guadaloupe! (Pure coincidence that the trip took place in January, of course.)

Can anyone say "Gravy-Train"?.

By chance I received the regular newsletter from my local council yesterday, and this is one of the pieces within:

Haven't learned much science in three years, have you Simon?

Further to the subject of profligacy, I once visited Otterburn Moor in Northumberland on a Trial. A lovely "day out" with a platoon of squaddies, firing mortars from a pit in the peat and eating that peculiar British Army "cold rations" brew, where they just open packs at random and stir them up in a billy. Cold Beef Stew, peaches and Chocolate Orios. Lovely! I returned weary, cold and mud spattered to the buildings. There, purely by luck, I saw a member of our Staff talking to a lathe-turner, 300 miles from base! Turned out he was getting the machining of small Development parts done in the Workshops there, thus getting 3 days fixed-rate expenses while staying at barracks free, a 600 mile gasoline allowance and all the Army scoff and free beer he could get down his neck in the Sergeants' Mess! Our own machine-shop was desperate for work at the time, and was a short walk from his office. A quiet word with our Director put the kybosh on that little swindle, pdq!

Alan

edit spelling.
Bill: Just noticed. Sit tight? I prefer to lounge loose!

And why all these special extension boards, whatever they may be?

Are council employees so dim that they can't just switch off at the wall when they pack up for the day?

There's no doubt that vast amounts of office equipment sit on all night for no good reason, really, you'd think they'd just pull the plug / switch off at the socket. 'extension boards' are hardly necessary!

Dave, No Way!!
That's just far too simple.
With all the computer gear used in offices these days, you'd think that there would be a Master switch at the door that could be turned off by the last person leaving.
I'm with you Paul regarding this "isolation" thingy, sounds like snake oil to me.
Does Simon know something that we don't?.

{Message edited for a typo.}

What about all the places that use UPS battery backups, that are constantly trickle-charging their batteries? Must admit, I'm guilty of that one.

The mercury in a CFL can be recycled, and many municipalities have already invested in the vacuum equipment to do this. But even if the user throws the old bulb in the trash, it releases less mercury into the environment than an incandescent, nearly anywhere in North America and most other parts of the world.

Why? Because coal power plants release mercury into the air. The amount of mercury emissions prevented by the CFL turns out to be more mercury than the amount contained by the bulb itself.

As for the comment about CFLs using much more energy to manufacture, I doubt it. The most energy-intensive part is forming the glass, which shouldn't take a lot more energy than forming the glass of an incandescent.

What they are is more labor-intensive. Those spirals, I've heard, have to be formed by hand.

Just costed out the difference in price at the hypermart. 100W incandescent bulb = 50 centimes.
Energy saving bulb 7.50euro, 1500% more.
If the savings are 80W @ 9c per kwh, when's the breakeven? 962 hours.
OK, it's worth it, eventually, given the long life of ES bulbs.
I saw on the BBC that if we all changed to low energy bulbs, that would be the equivalent of taking 70% of all the cars off the road. Food for thought there.

Now for a question. If we all use a lot less electricity, will the price go up?

Alan

7.5 euro for a single CFL? Well, heck... You can get a 6-pack at the orange box store for that here in the states.

BDC trade catalog, Micromark 11W BC CFL
£1.69 each or £1.29 for 10+, exclusive of VAT.

Another thought about the embodied energy of CFLs:

I've never actually taken a dead CFL apart and weighed the glass to compare it to an incandescent. (Let's just agree that the glass is the most energy-intensive part.) The CFL has to have more glass mass, since the spiral has more surface area. (In fact, for any fluorescent, the light output is proportional to the surface area.)

So, let's say the CFL takes 4x as much energy to manufacture. So what? They also last 6x to 10x as long, so it's still not a false economy.

You can buy 10k hour CFLs at the big orange store for $10 US per six-pack. At that rate, they are an economic no-brainer for the consumer (~$0.09/kWh) even if they last no longer than 1k hour incandescent.

The hour life expectancy, btw, is MTBF (mean time between failures, or more plainly, the average). So after 1k hours, 50% of A-19 incandescents will have failed, and 50% will still work. After 10k hours, 50% of CFLs will have failed, and 50% will still work. Remember that the next time a customer asks you to explain why his bulbs don't last very long!

So even if your CFL only lasts half it's advertised lifetime, it still used 25% of the kWh, and cost the consumer less, and I very much doubt that the increased embodied energy negated these gains.

I went back and rechecked the prices in the Hyper mart and 2 builders-merchants, one national big store the other a small local business. The cheapest cfl [coiled] was [ = to ] US$10 each, but they went up to over US$12 each for a 22W 'traditional bulb shape' version. Incandescents varied from $0.75 up to $1.50 each depending on brand.

Even at these prices, I'll admit a low energy bulb is paid for in less than 1000 hours use.

My objections are: delayed start; slow build up to full power, the color quality of the light, and that they can be dangerous to us users of rotating machinery. From my own perspective, is it me getting old, or are the 'equivalent to' wattage ratings on these bulbs a bit optimistic? They never seem to throw as much light out as an incandescent.

My other objection is being pontificated at by some fourth-rate smarmy gummint parasites on my right to choose my light bulbs, as if we had no other pressing problems to deal with. These are the very same morons who intend to waste best part of $20,000,000,000 on a bunch of losers who can run fast in the London Olympics in 2012. How much carbon that utterly boring fiasco will dump into the atmosphere, God alone knows.

That's a good point. If the filament bulb is to go out of production completely, what's going to happen for workshops? Is everyone going to have to use 3-phase to minimize the stroboscopic effect? Or will incandescent bulbs still be available, but perhaps only with some sort of "special" base so that people won't be tempted to buy them for regular home use? (If so, can we then expect workshop users to have to fork out more money for replacement holders/fittings?)

What about theatre/studio/TV use? I guess filament lamps will still be available in these sort of powers/styles.

I'd say so. Those 11W CFLs which are supposedly equivalent to 60W GLS don't look anywhere near as bright to me, unless it's just the different spectrum of light who makes them appear that way.

My sentiments exactly!

Most electronic ballasts nowadays operate at 20kHz or so. There is no perceiveable stroboscopic effect.

I agree that some sort of filament lamp is necessary for studio camera work. I'd guess that the oddball bases used for these applications would continue to be made.

For that matter, what about your oven light, or your fridge? Do LEDs even work at oven temps? I know CFLs don't. They don't work very well at fridge temps either, and aren't very well suited to being turned on and off repeatedly.

The apparent brightness of a CFL varies according to the direction of the light. A CFL burned base down will send less light downward than an equivalent incandescent. As CFLs become more common, fixture designs will evolve to compensate for this.

15W, not 11, is equivalent to a 60W incandescent, at least in the 120V world. I've read that incandescents are less efficient when designed for higher voltages, so 11W may be equivalent in the 240V world (that's why Edison and others initially fixed lighting voltages at 100-110V).

Here is a site with spectrographs of various fluorescent and incandescent lamps.

The last time I was in a television studio (KATU 2, Portland, Oregon, in 2003) they were using banks of CFL lights. The fixtures were panels roughly 36' x 24', that contained a row of tubes and a reflector. As far as I know, they were dimmable. They still had a couple of incandescent fresnels in there, too. I suspect that one of the motivations to use CFL over incandescent in a studio is heat, as they pack lights in there pretty tightly, and only 10' or so above your head.

On the stage, our lighting is still done with quartz-halogen incandescent lamps, partially because of the easier dimmability, faster rise time, consistency of intensity, etc. Although, a lot of big-money rigs (like concerts) have some pretty cool LED setups. Not only do they draw less power, but they can be plugged directly into the wall (no external dimming needed) and have a full 256-bit color mixing spectrum. I haven't worked with any of them personally (as I don't work in a "big-money" shop) but I've seen pictures and demos online and in print. They are primarily sold as replacement for PAR or Fresnel-type fixtures, as they have a semi-diffused beam. While these may replace some incandescent fixtures, the old quartz-halogen lamp will probably remain the mainstay for spot-type fixtures.

And others? I thought Joseph Swan standardised on 200V. The story as I know it was 110V was the highest voltage that Edison's prototype carbon filament lamp could withstand without burning out.
Regardless of the lamp efficiency; the use of 110V ia far less efficient than 200-250V used elsewhere.

Some of the earliest 3-wire DC distribution systems in the U.K. were 100/200V (or thereabouts), with 100V bulbs.

noderaser,
I was always under the impression that Metal-Halide lighting sources were favoured for TV camera's both Indoor and Outdoor Broadcasting, because of the Colour Rendering (97%)?.

Reason I ask that is because sports stadia here use this (in large amounts) as opposed to any other form of lighting.
However back to the topic of lighting in general, as mentioned over on another thread, T5 fluorescent tubes have no strobo-scopic effect, being fed from HF ballasts, this would be my option, given the choice for a workshop.

On this side of the pond, the standard "daylight" temperature that is used for NTSC television cameras is 5000K, while PAL cameras use 6500K. Fluorsecents can easily achieve either of these temperatures; not having much international experience in the studio, I can't say why they would choose to use Metal-Halide over Fluorescent, especially since they're more expensive and require some pretty fancy electronics to keep them regulated. They also emit quit a bit more UV radiation than fluorescents. But, I may infer that the Metal-Halide were used over quartz-halogen (that were used in the US) historically to get closter to the appropriate temperature for PAL cameras. I'm sure that modern European studios are using some fluorescents as well.

I do know that they use HID fresnels here for movie production (the really BIG fresnels, 3-4+ kW), and in many of the intelligent lighting fixtures, which use mechanical dowsers for dimming. They typically need color correction back towards the yellow/orange spectrum.

Metal-halide is often used for stadium and other outdoor large-area lighting here as well, probably because they can generate the required intensity to light a large area. I doubt very much that fluorescents would cut it in a stadium.

On a side note, I have 2700K CFL lamps, which are roughly equivalent (color temp-wise) to your standard incandescent. I also have a 6800K "reading lamp", which produces exteremely white light. The 6800 is nice for reading, but at times it seems as though text on the page is cutting through my retinas. The 2700's seem more "natural", like the incandescents we're used to.

noderaser,
I have 6500Kelvin lamps here.
I like the white light put out by them.
I hate the 2700K lamps on the market here at the moment, seemingly that is all you can get at the DIY stores here, they are far too orange or yellow for my liking.
In my office here I would sooner have a nice white light not something depressing like yellow or even worse orange.
That is why I moved away from incandescents in the first place.

What about the diminished light output of CFL in cold areas? I can't use them outside or unheated areas or outbuildings because when the weather is cold, they put out about 1 candlepower.
I can't believe the EU would even consider requiring them, since it gets even colder there.

The voltage of 100 or 110 as far as i have read, was originally derived from the old carbon arc lamp which strikes at 50 to 55 volts.
By doubling the voltage 2 of these lamps could be run in series and avoiding a power dissipating resistor.
Also the doubling of the voltages halves the current and thinner wires could be used.

System-wide, yes, this is true, at least from the standpoint of the amount of copper used. If incandescent lamps are the only load, it might pay to choose the optimum voltage for them. A 30V lamp would be even more efficient than a 100V lamp, but transmission efficiency would be dismal except in the smallest isolated system.

Since the early 20th century, our parallel circuits have carried diverse and ever-increasing loads, and the importance of lamp efficiency began to wane. Engineers began to agitate for higher voltages, and in many countries, they got them. Those of you who are writing on computers that run on 230VAC can thank the same bureaucracies you now complain about for setting this standard some decades ago.:D

Here in the USA, our standards are more loosely governed by a variety of competing industry groups. Decades ago, when utilities tried raising voltages, the motor manufacturers pushed back. The result is that we still have 120V for most domestic loads, fed from a transformer in the backyard rather than a substation on the edge of town!

Wow, I had no idea they were used in this application. The reduced heat output definitely is an advantage.

It appears that Canada is also moving towards a "cleaner" light source also:

Canada aims for light bulb phase-out

From correspondents on Ottawa
April 26, 2007 02:02am
Article from: Reuters

CANADA has switched on to Australia's plan to ban incandescent light bulbs, with Ottowa announcing its own timetable to ban the sale of the inefficient bulbs by 2012.

The ban was part of a plan to cut down on emissions of greenhouse gases, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said today.

Canada is the second country in the world to announce such a ban, after Australia said in February it would phase out all incandescent bulbs by 2009.

“Making the switch to more efficient lighting is one of the easiest and most effective things we can do to reduce energy use and harmful emissions,” Mr Lunn told a news conference today.

If households installed compact fluorescent bulbs - which use about 75 per cent less electricity than old-style bulbs - they could save C$50 ($53) a year, he said.

“By banning inefficient lighting, we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by more than six million tonnes per year,” Mr Lunn said.

The ban will not apply to uses where incandescent bulbs are still the only practical alternative.

Today's federal announcement follows last week's pledge by the Canadian province of Ontario to ban incandescent bulbs by 2012.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21623321-1702,00.html

Britain follows Australia in light globe switch off

From correspondents in London
September 28, 2007 06:55pm
Article from: AAP

BRITAIN is to follow Australia's lead and phase out high-energy lightbulbs in an attempt to cut millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.

The Howard Government announced in February that Australia would become the first country in the world to ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs from 2009.

Britain will begin pulling the plug on conventional light bulbs by introducing a phase out plan next year.

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said Britain would aim to replace all traditional light bulbs with energy efficient globes within four years, saving five million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually.

"The major retailers and energy suppliers are now leading a voluntary initiative, with the strong support of the lighting industry and the Government, to help phase out traditional high-energy light bulbs," he said.

"We need to turn them off for good."

Mr Benn flagged that he also wanted a phasing out of inefficient household appliances.

"There are many more energy hungry gadgets on sale in shops that waste too much energy," he said.

"That's why I want to see today's initiative widened.

"I want to see more retailers, manufacturers and service providers taking action to phase out the least efficient products from their ranges, for example, certain set top boxes and TVs, and so help offer greener choices to their customers."

Under the phase-out plan, British retailers will stop stocking the brightest 150-watt bulbs from January.

They will then stop selling 100-watt bulbs by January 2009 and then scrap 60-watt bulbs by January 2010.

Other standard incandescent light bulbs, such as 40-watt light globes as well as candle and golf-ball lamps, will be removed from shelves by December 2011.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22499123-23109,00.html

Time to start stockpiling bulbs!

For what good it will do (probably none), there are two petitions currently running on the No. 10 petitions website:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/savelightbulb/

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/incandescent/

They're only open to U.K. citizens and residents to sign, I'm afraid, but I'm willing to stand up and be counted.