A analysis carried out by the Professional Lighting Designers Association (PLDA) is of great interest. The association has been systematically monitoring developments around the worldwide phase-out of incandescent lamps, the significant environmental issues associated with this trend, and the broader global campaign to replace incandescent lamps with fluorescent ones.
For those unfamiliar with the Professional Lighting Designers Association, it is an international, voluntary professional association of architectural lighting designers and consultants, active at both international and national level.
Returning to the PLDA report, its main conclusion is that the energy savings from fluorescent lamps are clearly smaller than manufacturers claim. The analysis also provides data on the toxic mercury contained in fluorescent lamps. This poses a serious risk, particularly when combined with the mercury residues that reach the environment from farmland, which could contaminate Lake Geneva, the largest freshwater lake and reservoir in Europe, within a period of 8 years.
The study states that the general drive to phase out ordinary incandescent lamps, in the name of saving energy and protecting the environment, rests on mistaken assumptions and ignores other important factors relating to ecological risks.
The basic assumption is that, thanks to the higher efficacy of fluorescent lamps (the amount of light produced per unit of energy consumed), replacing incandescent lamps can contribute significantly to reducing energy consumption and, by extension, carbon dioxide emissions. Financial benefits from lower electricity consumption are also pointed out.
There is no disagreement about the better efficiency of fluorescent lamps: the PLDA acknowledges that they do indeed consume less energy and have a longer lifespan.
However, based on the PLDA’s analysis, there are significant points of disagreement on the following:
The overall energy saving from using fluorescent lamps instead of incandescent lamps is clearly smaller than estimated, and probably contributes far less to protecting the environment from the greenhouse effect.
The savings for consumers are much smaller than is implied.
The quality of the visual environment will be significantly and adversely affected.
The risks to the environment and to human health are extremely high and are not being taken into account. The incandescent lamp ban has been implemented without any measures for recycling the fluorescent lamps that will replace them, or any scientific measures for dealing with the toxins released from broken fluorescent lamps.
In the effort to convince the public of the environmental and economic benefits of using fluorescent lamps, the public is being misinformed, or insufficiently informed, about other factors that could negatively affect the transition to fluorescent lamps.
For the purposes of the analysis, the PLDA compares a 60A60/FR incandescent lamp (60 watt), one of the most commonly used in households, with an 11TC-DSE/827/E27 fluorescent lamp (an 11 watt stick lamp with integrated ballast and an E27 screw base, which makes it suitable as a replacement for the incandescent lamp above). This lamp was chosen because, until recently and since the start of the campaign to replace incandescent lamps, manufacturers and retailers have systematically used it as the substitute for 60W incandescent lamps.
On the question of whether the public has been deliberately misinformed or simply not properly informed, the PLDA states that fluorescent lamp packaging gives the correct technical information, but the public does not have the technical knowledge to understand it. It also acknowledges that in a few cases there are references, in small print, to the fact that, for example, these lamps are not suitable for use in enclosed luminaires, and to other restrictions on their use in general. Likewise, the report points out that there is insufficient information about their toxic components and about the measures to be taken in the event of direct exposure to them.
Press announcements about the PLDA analysis are due to be made shortly in London and Frankfurt. The person responsible for researching and reporting on the subject on behalf of the PLDA is Gad Giladi, FPLDA, Kevan Shaw, PLDA, IALD.
You can download the full analysis as a PDF here.
