Well said, Carl Gardner, (Farewell to the incandescent, or ‘a ban too soon’, Vector July 2007, p 30). At last, someone has heard the penny drop and does not like the sounds he hears! At the risk of shattering the energy saving dreams of governments, NGOs, supply utilities, et-al, and at the same time taking a swipe at the lamp manufacturers, the realisation that the CFL in its present form is not the answer to everything has finally dawned.
Whilst I cannot agree with all of the points he raises, two fundamentals stand out, namely that the retrofit integral electronic lamp is less efficient than a dedicated CFL on electronic control gear, and secondly, the failure of lamp manufacturers and the lamp-holder industry to agree on suitable alternatives to the ubiquitous E27 and B22 lamp-holders for GLS lamps, borders on the insane.
I raised both of the above concerns in 1995 when I was the South African delegate at the “Right Light 3” conference held in UK. The response from the speaker delivering “feel good” statistics from “The Energy Savings Trust” (a UK body), was obscure and unconvincing and reminded me of the famous ostrich syndrome.
One only has to view lamp manufacturers’ catalogues/data to see that the integral electronic lamp family is subject to an increased power loss due to the built-in electronics. This amounts to around
2 W throughout the group and is included in the system wattage. Hence a 13 W integral electronic lamp for instance, will have the same luminous flux as an 11 W dedicated lamp - 900 lumen in both cases.
The question of the GLS type traditional lamp-holders was dealt with in depth in my article published in Vector October 2005. In support of the Carl Gardner paper, I will repeat, why is it that after about 25 years of CFLs, no suitable alternative to the E27 and B22 lamp-holders has been developed? It is surely not rocket science! A simple two stage decision process would solve this thorny issue. Firstly an agreement on technicals and legislation, and secondly, new tooling by lamp makers and lamp-holder makers launched together. THAT’s ALL! Tooling will have been replaced several times in the last 25 years anyway. All that the industry needs to resolve and prevent the retrofitting of CFLs with energy inefficient filament lamps again at some time in the future, hence wiping out potential, and temporarily realised energy conservation, is a failsafe lamp-holder/lamp base configuration. For the E27, a new size for integrated CFLs, say E24, could be an alternative. Neither size would accommodate the other. Problem fixed! For the B22 bayonet types, smaller sizes, e.g. B20, B15 etc. already exist, so it would make sense to increase the size for a foul fit. In the interests of standardisation, why not a B24 (24 mm barrel dimension) for integral CFLs? Again one would not fit the other hence filament lamps could not be substituted for CFL lamps. Are the suggestions above too difficult, or too easy?
In his article, Carl Gardner raised the difficulty of policing retrofitted schemes and unscrupulous importers. Surely a simple go/no-go gauge issued to customs and points of entry would identify non-compliance and goods could be impounded and destroyed, whilst the importers/exporters could be prosecuted. Since GLS lamps are to be banned/phased out anyway in some countries, it is unlikely that these lamps would be re-engineered to take the new dimension caps.
As he also pointed out, the current practice of retrofitting integral electronic lamps into GLS lamp-holder points can only be regarded as a temporary solution, with only temporary energy savings which are not sustainable, and therefore have no guarantee of continuation of savings so achieved. This fact will come back to haunt utilities, NGOs, municipalities, etc. at some future date.
Taken to the extreme, the air we breathe, the environment, the power station building programme, and the planet’s future, may depend on a simple change in lamp-holders.
Contact Brian Rowell, Lightworx, Tel 011 679-4112, lightworx@telkomsa.net