Even though I believe that solid-state lighting (primarily LEDs, but also electroluminescent technology of other flavors) is the way of the future, I don’t think outright legislation is the way to go for adoption of energy-efficient light sources. I’d much rather see tax credits to manufacturers to reduce the retail price point or other measures and incentives that would inspire marketplace action.
The 490 million citizens of the 27 member states will be expected to switch to energy-efficient bulbs after a summit of EU leaders yesterday told the European Commission to “rapidly submit proposals” to that effect.
Environmentalists said the change would save the public up to £5.4 billion a year in fuel bills and also about 20 million tonnes of carbon emissions every year.
The energy that would be saved in the UK is equivalent to one medium-sized power station.
The biggest problem is that this too-early push means that Chinese made compact flourescent lamps will become the stopgap, and they still have fabrication and materials issues. We should wait and let next-generation SSL push out incandescent lamps in a natural progression. We didn’t need to legislate the LP or videocassette away either.
What I don’t understand is that many years ago a worldwide ban on mercury batteries was instituted because of the mercury that ended up in landfills and eventually in the watertable.
Why are fluorescent lamps which all contain mercury any different?