What took them so long?

At Last the Government is to encourage use of low energy lighting

Last year 39TWh of energy (that’s 39 billion kWh) was used to light commercial and public sector buildings in the UK, while around 15TWh was used in homes -so any moves to encourage savings in this area is very welcome.

So good news that the government has announced it is considering (and consulting on) ways to encourage homes and businesses to install low-energy lighting and controls. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has at last realised that a quarter of the potential energy savings to be made in homes by 2030 could come from getting rid of incandescent lamps. Also that lighting and controls could account for more than a third of savings in commercial properties and nearly half in the public sector (including street lighting). It’s what we in the lighting industry have been telling them for ages.

The potential benefits are significant. A 10 per cent reduction in electricity demand could lead to cost savings of around £4bn in 2030, more than compensating for the investment made upfront. That amount of energy is comparable to that generated by five power stations in the UK.

Sadly, In the residential sector, the major barrier to adopting newer lighting technologies like CFLs and LEDs has been partly due to lack of awareness, but also sullen public resentment at being forced to abandon the much loved incandescent light bulb in favour of more expensive alternatives. Many consumers have chosen to ignore the clear long term advantages of low energy lighting while fuming at being told what they can’t buy by Brussels.  They have, of course, missed the point – and we must all try harder to clarify the issues and educate consumers more effectively.

We at Megaman are already trying hard to get the message across, and so are most intelligent players in the UK lighting market. But it would be helpful if the consumer and national press would help too, instead of running scaremongering articles which talk up phantom dangers and risks to the exclusion of clear, proven advantages.

DECC has come in for a lot of criticism from energy related companies and organisations over the past few years – hopefully it has now changed course and will work with key players to educate the public more effectively, encourage investment in renewables and reduce energy consumption in the face of a proven global warming menace.

Relevant links:

DECC:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/busgreen_ed/busgreen_ed.aspx

CIBSE (Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers):  http://www.cibse.org/index.cfm?go=news.view&item=217

ACE (Association for the Conservation of Energy): http://www.ukace.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=699&Itemid=1

Lux Magazine:

http://luxmagazine.co.uk/news/20/gov-t-aims-to-slash-energy-demand-for-lighting

Megaman UK:

www.megamanuk.com

Electrical wholesalers need to shun cost cutting LED manufacturers

Most people in the electrical industry know that poorly designed and assembled LED bulbs from dodgy manufacturers are currently giving the industry a bad name. And here at Megaman we recently sponsored an article in the leading trade magazine Electrical Wholesaler to draw this to everyone’s attention.

We are now asking the industry to work together to shun these sources,  as manufacturers of cheaply made products are undoubtedly cutting corners in their assembly processes and often claiming to be something they are not. From our experience, we know some of these “rogue” manufacturers out there are claiming that their products are a 40W incandescent or 50W halogen equivalent, when in fact they are only a 15W equivalent.

We believe that by selling these shoddy products, some wholesalers are risking damage to their reputation - an effect which could turn out to be very costly in the long run as products fail to meet expectations and professional reputations get permanently scarred.

It is fair to say that with the LED lamp market taking off at lightning speed (excuse the pun!) it is tricky to keep track of which are the most reliable products. This means that sometimes the market choice is confusing for the average consumer who is considering which LED light to buy. What looks like a good lamp may well perform badly and a number of lamps in the same packaging, or even the same box, have been found to perform inconsistently. But as the consumer can’t see inside the lamp and they can’t tell how a lamp will perform from the size of the heat sink, it’s all a bit of an unfortunate gamble.

Fortunately, the Government has issued some guidance to the LIA under Article 9 which lists the names of manufacturers whose lamps have been deemed to be unsafe in Europe and withdrawn from sale. This list continues to grow so we do get some protection, but we also need to tackle the issue as an industry and formulate a joined up approach which includes customs, freight companies and ports of entry to stop this type of inferior product from entering the country.

There are a number of good schemes in operation which we wholeheartedly support, including the LIA Performance Verified Scheme where manufacturers are able to pay for a test (wattage and lumen output) and the results are published on the LIA website.

Other innovative schemes such as WHICHLEDLIGHT.COM do a similar job and both of these  are great tools for wholesalers, providing a certain level of protection against shoddy products bringing back consumer annoyance which may come back to bite you.

Ironically, we have already dealt with this issue with CFLs successfully but now that the LED market is really taking off what the industry needs to do is learn from the past and do something to ensure that only quality products, from manufacturers who can be relied on, are entering the market.

If you are confused about which high quality LED lighting product would most suit your purpose,  visit the LED comparison website www.whichledlight.com.

A compelling case for energy bill rationalisation: Make the profligate pay

Take a close look at your energy bill. The initial amount of energy you have used is charged at a higher rate. Shouldn’t the opposite occur to discourage energy waste? Andrew Warren, director of the UK’s Association for the Conservation of Energy (ACE) makes a compelling case for reversing such a perverse price signal in a recent edition of his organisation’s Warren Report.

Mr Warren points out an obvious anomaly, and one wonders why is hasn’t become more widely discussed and publicised.

 To quote from his excellent report:

“It does seem clear that gas and electricity charges are currently levied at rates that seem deliberately to discourage frugality, and perversity describes precisely how all fuel bills are calculated. Look at your own gas or electric bill. The initial kilowatt hours consumed each month are charged at around three times the price of subsequent units. The result is that those who practise careful consumption are penalised. Whereas there is effectively a volume discount on profligate energy consumption.

Now, opinion formers like Which? are overtly hammering the absurdity of thrifty consumers “paying more than a third extra per unit than someone who uses twice as much”. Both practically, and in particular psychologically, this is no way to impress upon consumers the value of energy conservation: this is prima facie not the way to alter perceptions of value. “

The report points out that this is also not the best way to help poorer households: Consumer Focus have found that 85 per cent of low-income households consume less energy than average, and therefore pay more per unit. With over 5m households now in fuel poverty, there is a real urgency to turn the price signals round. Instead of being many times more expensive, the initial amount of energy use should be priced at a lower rather than higher rate.

This concept, the ‘Rising Block Tariff’, could be implemented in a number of ways. As in the conventional model, energy companies could be obliged to increase the unit price of the energy underwrite the basic needs of fuel poor households and subsidise fuel-saving measures could be increased, with impunity. No longer could it be said that these policy costs were harming the fuel poor. Instead, only the profligate would underwrite them.

Clearly, with government ministers currently looking hard at the way in which energy companies charge their customers, there has never been a better time to overhaul the way in which energy bills are worked out.

Andrew Warren points out that Tim Yeo (currently chairman of the Commons select committee overseeing the DECC) acknowledged the absurdity of offering lower rates for extra expenditure when he was environment minister twenty years ago. He recognised then that what people wanted to buy from an energy company was not a commodity, equating kilowatt hours with detergents or soap flakes. It was services like light, heat, motive power, which could be provided satisfactorily by burning fewer units of power. He pressed for the introduction of rising block tariffs. Sadly he did not succeed at the time, quite possibly because climate change and energy policy were run by different government departments. But also because the pressing need to reduce energy consumption was then scarcely acknowledged politically.

Time has now moved on. Both policies are under the same management now, and we agree that now is clearly the time to reverse these absurd incentives for profligacy.

Beware "Rough Service" Incandescent Light Bulbs!

Most governments around the world have now taken steps to ban the import and sale of old fashioned incandescent light bulbs. Even China, where most of the manufacturing has taken place recently, has already banned some and is planning to phase them all out from October 2016. Here in the UK, there is now a ban on all traditional incandescent types over 25 Watts.

Despite its apparent unpopularity, the reason for the ban is plain to see – these bulbs consume far too much energy for the earth’s eco-systems, and replacing them with low-energy alternatives like compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) or LED based bulbs will cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce global warming. It really is a no-brainer:  each old-style bulb converts most of its consumed energy to heat, not light, and by replacing just ten incandescent bulbs in one average sized residence with low energy types can save the emission of about a quarter ton of carbon dioxide each year at the power station.

Earlier this year, the UK government confirmed that the ban would bring an "average annual net benefit" of £108m to the UK between 2010 and 2020 in energy savings. And the UK’s Energy Saving Trust states that fitting a single energy-saving bulb can save on average £3 a year and that by replacing all their traditional light bulbs householders could save £55 a year.

In taking the decision to ban incandescent bulbs, governments around the world have been well advised by the planet’s best scientific experts, among whom there is absolutely no disagreement.  This isn't a trivial passing 'fad', nor an assault on civil liberty (which is claimed by die hard eco-sceptics), but a serious attempt to address the world's climate change and pollution problems. People who insist on stockpiling traditional bulbs, or resorting to ‘black-market’ sources, are demonstrating gross selfishness and complete disregard for the ecological challenges the international community is trying its best to avoid.

One sign that selfish users in the UK are determined to undermine these global efforts is that some high street and Internet retailers appear to have found a loophole which allows them to get around the new rules. They are offering so-called “rough-service” incandescent bulbs, which look almost identical to the bulbs that have now been outlawed. However, what is not being made clear is that these bulbs are specially manufactured for industrial use, and while they may be specially toughened to withstand the knocks and vibrations of industrial environments, they are in most ways far inferior to the old “domestic” types.

While some irresponsible retailers are fudging the issue and claiming that these bulbs are suitable for domestic use, consumers should be aware that they are clearly marked as ‘not suitable for household room illumination’ for good reasons, and this warning should be heeded.

•  ·         Genuine rough service lamps are built for industrial applications and so cost considerably more than domestic incandescent light bulbs used to.

• ·         They also cost much more to run (almost twice as much in some cases) than energy efficient replacements.
• ·         Because of their design, they produce a lower level of light than an equivalent household incandescent lamp.
• ·         Household insurance policies could well be invalidated should one or more of these lamps be used in the house.

The National Measurement Office, the UK government agency responsible for enforcing the ban on traditional bulbs, has specifically warned householders against buying rough-service bulbs. An official guidance paper states:

 “Whilst all the major retail outlets market special purpose lamps very differently from those used for household illumination, there are a growing number of websites and other forms of distance marketing which do not make such a distinction.”

“Consumers should ensure that they do not use special purpose/rough service lamps for household room illumination as they are declared by the manufacturer as unsuitable for this purpose. Consideration should be given to the terms and conditions of any household insurance policy if such lamps are used for illuminating your house.”

The message is clear....

Caveat Emptor – Let The Buyer Beware!

Throwing Light on Migraine Triggers

Migraine is a truly global phenomenon. European and American studies for the World Health Organisation have shown that 6-8% of men and 15-18% of women experience migraine each year and it is estimated that 14% of the adults in Europe are affected by the affliction. In the UK the condition currently affects around 9 million people (about 14% of the population). Some migraines are triggered by lighting effects, such as flickering or point sources, colour variations and others.

There have been a number of anecdotal reports in both printed and online form of migraines triggered by Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs). However, there have to date been no large scale clinical or scientific studies to determine exactly how widespread the phenomenon is, or what the root cause of such triggers could be. An authoritative report by the Association for the Conservation of Energy (ACE) in 2009 confirmed that robust research had at that time been inadequate globally, and that various anecdotally reported health problems had not been followed up scientifically.

Now some light may have been shed on the nature of these “CFL Triggers”. Major CFL manufacturer Megaman has recently been involved with an informal project to study the effects of these lamps on migraine sufferers with light sensitivity issues. And the project has thrown up some unexpected results which could help migraine sufferers to select low energy lighting products which minimise the number and severity of attacks.

The joint project, using specially selected Megaman CFLs, and a panel of volunteers from the UK charity Migraine Action, has concluded that products with certain colour temperatures could be more beneficial to migraine sufferers, and that larger bulbs (i.e. those with less ‘glare’) are probably better than smaller, more intense light sources.

While the lamp trials were informal,  and involved only 25 volunteers, the results turned up some unexpected results. For instance:

·         >>A standard ‘GLS’ traditionally shaped bulb of colour temperature 2700K resulted in fewer ‘triggers’ than other types tested.

·         >>Both warmer and cooler colour temperatures than 2700K (e.g. 2400K, 4000K and 6500K) triggered more attacks.

·         >>4000K bulb types caused most attacks.

·        >> A small diameter ‘globe type triggered more attacks than a larger, more powerful type  indicating that glare or intensity of the light source may also be a factor.

·         The range of colour temperatures tested would seem to represent the limits of practical application, as a number of participants viewed 2300K types as “too dim” and 6500K types as “too bright” or “too intense”.

The trials do seem to have identified key CFL characteristics which may be less likely to trigger attacks in certain migraine sufferers. So further investigation now seems worthwhile, leading hopefully to a range of ‘low trigger’ products available specifically for light sensitive users.

A copy of the full Lamp Trial Report (PDF Format) can be downloaded HERE

You can reduce soaring electricity bills simply by changing your light bulbs

Despite recent well publicised reductions in gas prices, the average combined electricity and gas bill for UK households has increased by around £57 since last year – reflecting a massive increase in the cost of electricity alone. And currently, more British homeowners than ever are now in the grip of fuel poverty (if you spend more than 10% of your income on fuel bills you are classed as ‘fuel poor’).

With the coldest winter in the UK for 31 years just experienced, the bills for around half of the UK population are being sent out now and it may be quite a shock to many to see their average energy bill having risen by around 10% for the last cold quarter alone. Looking at electricity alone, according to DECC (the UK Department of Environment & Climate Change), provisional 2011 statistics show that the average UK electricity bill (across all payment types) rose last year by £38 to £455 – over 8%.

The really depressing part is that this is not a new trend. Since 2004 there have been sustained rises in the price charged to homeowners by all the major energy companies. According to AMDEA (the UK trade association for manufacturers of domestic appliances) between 2005 and 2009 the UK price of domestic electricity nearly doubled from 7p per unit to over 13p per unit. That’s an average of 17% for each year. To put this into context, we can simply summarise by saying that domestic electricity prices have actually doubled since 2004, and the trend is continuing.

Even the government recognises that there have been “sustained price rises” for consumers over the past 6 years (a comment made by junior energy minister David Kidney recently) but they believe a referral to the competition commission would “delay investment in UK infrastructure”. In political language this means the government is not going to do much about it.

So what can you do about it if your electricity bills are sky-rocketing ?

The answer has two elements: your pricing and your consumption.

You can possibly get a better pricing deal by shopping around the energy suppliers (it is generally accepted that consumers who shop around do get better deals) and it is certainly an exercise well worth the effort.

The second way forward is to reduce your domestic energy consumption by making sure that all appliances and lamps are energy efficient, and by using them sparingly. Probably the easiest and cheapest step to take of all (and one that pays immediate benefits) is simply to change your light bulbs.

To get a handle on potential savings, let’s look at the lighting requirements of “an average house”. Assuming that there are about 24 lighting points and lamps in an average house, if they were each using one 60 Watt incandescent bulb (the ubiquitous common light bulb), that’s a total power consumption of 1440 Watts overall. If those lamps were used only for an average of four hours every day, that’s 5.76 kilowatt hours (i.e. 5.76 units of electricity) daily.

Over a year that works out (allowing for some holidays and summer-time reductions) at around 1730 units annually, which at a current cost of around 10p equates to about £173.

· By switching to compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) you would save up to 80%, i.e. your lighting bills could reduce from £173 to £35

· By switching to LED based bulbs, you could save up to 90%, i.e. your lighting bills could reduce from £173 to £18

• These sums certainly make economic sense, but there are also some additional benefits…..
• Low energy bulbs last much longer than obsolete incandescent types - up to 15 times longer.
• You’ll also be helping the environment by reducing CO2 emissions at the generating plant
• Modern low energy lamps can be dimmed using standard dimming circuits
• They don’t get hot like incandescent bulbs, so are much less of a safety/fire risk

This would appear to be a ‘no-brainer’. Simply replace your old energy guzzling light bulbs with new low-energy types and you’ll start reducing electricity bills right away!

About Megaman and our low energy lighting solutions:

Megaman is a global brand in high-performance, energy-efficient lighting and an innovative leader in LED and CFL lamp design. Our company has won a range of international energy and environmental awards, which here in the UK includes The Energy Efficiency Recommended label issued by The Energy Saving Trust. Similar awards have been made in Europe and the Far East.

Check us and our partners out at: www.megamanuk.com