Why it's time to throw some light on the energy efficient lighting row

The Daily Mail campaign against the removal of incandescent bulbs from UK shops earlier this month ricocheted through the media, generating comments and criticisms from all sides of the debate and leaving consumers and businesses in a state of confusion as to where the truth lies in this complex topic.

After all, as The Guardian pointed out with glee, only a year ago The Mail had been running enthusiastic free giveaways of the very bulbs they were now criticising.

So where does the truth really lie? Are energy efficient Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFL) a cost-saving no brainer, or as The Mail claims are they an inferior product to traditional alternatives with added health risks thrown in?

Let's start with the big picture.

The proposed switch from incandescents to CFLs across large parts of globe undoubtedly represents the biggest change in lighting since the invention of the light bulb.

This "Big Switch", which has secured support from countless governments, businesses and green groups, has its roots in a June 2006 report from the International Energy Agency - a 558-page document entitled Light's Labour Lost – which was produced as part of its work on the G8 "Plan of Action on a Clean, Clever and Competitive Energy Future" and made the case for a more energy efficient approach to lighting.

The following year in February 2007, the IEA convened a workshop that brought together the world's leading European, North American and Chinese lamp manufacturers with the goal of drawing up plans to phase out incandescents.

A month later, the European Lamp Companies Federation, which includes in its membership the three largest light-bulb companies in the world, issued a statement that they would begin pushing European consumers to switch to energy saving bulbs.

Governments and legislators across the world were quick to enshrine this initiative through policy measures and legislation designed to mandate the shift towards CFLs.

Strategies range from complete bans of incandescents, to gradual phase-outs combined with pressure on retailers to introduce voluntary measures to deter sales of traditional bulbs, but almost all governments appear united in their view that a switch in lighting technologies represents one of the easiest available means of curbing carbon emissions.

It is the UK's voluntary ban on 100W incandescent bulbs that began at the start of this year and the mandatory EU ban that is to begin in 2010 that is the main focus of the Daily Mail's ire – a stance that fits neatly with the paper's perception of itself as a defender of consumer choice and opponent of the "nanny state" and overbearing EU regulations.

Interestingly, The Mail has a successful precedent to work on. In December 2008, the New Zealand government bowed to consumer and political pressure and rescinded its ban on incandescent bulbs, choosing instead to let consumer demand drive the changeover to CFLs.

As well as attacking it's familiar target of faceless Brussels bureaucrats The Mail also criticised CFL's themselves, levelling a raft of accusations at the technology.

Firstly, it argued that CFL's do not last as long as claimed, take a long while to warm up, don't fit in all existing light fittings, will not work in enclosed fittings, and don't work with dimmers, timers or remote controls. It also claimed that they won’t work if they get too hot or cold, or if exposed to moisture and vibration.

Proponents of CFLs immediately countered that all these concerns are outdated and that there are now energy efficient bulbs that work in virtually any context, including with dimmer switches. There are good and bad CFLs and, by and large, you get what you pay for. The most expensive produce the best light, match their efficiency claims and deliver the biggest energy bill savings.

Secondly, The Mail voiced concerns about the quality and limited spectrum of light which CFLs produce and the health issues associated with them.

There is some evidence that CFLs appear to exacerbate certain health problems suffered by a significant minority of people, an issue that has yet to be addressed properly by national governments.

However, the lighting industry said there was no evidence the latest CFLs can trigger fits - as was feared to be the case with some earlier versions - and while there are some rare skin conditions that CFLs can exacerbate the industry is committed to working with medical experts to address any problems.

Thirdly, The Mail touched upon complex disposal issues arising from the bulbs’ mercury content.

Supporters of CFLs have always argued that the biggest mercury pollution problem comes from burning coal; thus using energy-efficient CFLs will actually reduce mercury emissions because less coal will be burnt.

New research published in October 2008 by researchers at Yale University - the first to rigorously compare mercury emissions from CFLs and incandescent bulbs in all 50 US states and 130 countries - confirms this is the case, but only in places that rely heavily on coal for electricity, such as West Virginia or China. In other places like California and Norway, where most of the energy comes from cleaner power sources, the report argues that legislators would do better to stick to incandescent bulbs if the sole aim is to reduce mercury.

As to the health threat posed by breakages of CFLs in the home, there are a wide variety of official pronouncements by governments and companies on this topic and a considerable difference in degrees of concern.

At one extreme, no worries at all; just open the window, sweep up the bits, put them in a plastic bag and dispose of them in the rubbish. At the other, we have the State of Maine, which, after conducting a series of stringent scientific tests, amended its health advice to consumers to read: "You may want to consider restricting the use of CFLs in the rooms of infants, children and pregnant women, and in table and floor lamps that are easily tipped over…"

Because of the pinhead of mercury in each bulb, CFLs are considered toxic waste and should not be included in household waste but taken to a special collection points at civic recycling centres.

It is accepted that the majority of the bulbs will not be recycled in this manner and will end up in landfill, leading to millions of drops of mercury finding their way into the environment. Broken bulbs will pose a health risk to waste and recycling workers and in every country proposing to make the "Big Switch", there are seemingly legitimate concerns that inadequate recycling facilities are in place.

The lighting industry is aware of this potentially toxic problem and has agreed industry standards to try and minimise mercury content, but regulating the Chinese manufacturers that produce the bulk of CFLs may prove difficult.

It is also quick to point out that all the criticism of CFLs tends to down play their core benefits, namely that they save users around £80 in reduced energy bills over the life of the bulb, slashing carbon emissions in the process.

In summary, CFLs have helped encourage people to take a first simple step towards a more energy efficient future – but at the cost of creating a potential toxic waste problem.

Moreover, many within the lighting industry are convinced that the debate about CFLs will soon prove as redundant as the incandescent bulbs they replace.

CFLs have always been seen in the lighting industry as a transitional technology designed to bridge the gap between existing lighting equipment and alternatives that are even more efficient that CFLs and come with none of the attached disposal problems.

For example, several major manufacturers already sell lamps that use tungsten halogen technology, which offers a 30 per cent energy saving over the traditional incandescent lamp with none of the problems associated with CFLs.

LED technology is also a much promoted future solution for energy efficient lighting, although according to Kevan Shaw of the Professional Lighting Designers Association, it is still a few years from reaching the mainstream and "only the most expensive and high technology LEDs are even approaching the high efficiencies and quality of light that is being promised".

However, others are convinced that LED's represent the future of lighting. Engineering giant General Electric, for example, recently canned a project to develop high-efficiency incandescent lamp (HEI) in order to place greater focus and investment on LEDs and organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs).

Describing the technology as the "ultimate in energy efficient lighting", GE spokesman David Schuellerman said that LED's would soon enter the mainstream.

"Research and development of these technologies is moving at an impressive pace and will be ready for general lighting in the near future," he said. "LEDs and OLEDs used in general lighting are now poised to surpass the projected efficiency levels of HEI, along with other energy-efficient technologies like fluorescent, and have the additional benefits of long life and durability."

All of which poses interesting questions for businesses looking to upgrade their lighting technologies and unsure about whether to move to CFLs now or wait for LEDs and halogen alternatives to become more widely available.

Although with incandescent bulbs on the way out and energy bills expected to keep rising in the long term some sort of energy efficiency upgrade looks better than none, just as long as firms are fully aware of the disposal issues that arise when using CFLs.

Finally, let us not forget the simplest and most effective solution to the energy and environmental issues surrounding lighting – switching lights off.