Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Govt to ban incandescent bulbs by 2014

PETALING JAYA (Oct 16, 2012): The Energy, Green Technology and Water Ministry has announced phasing out traditional light bulbs – also known as incandescent bulbs, that will eventually lead to a complete ban in 2014.
The policy is part of the government's initiative to reduce carbon intensity by 40% by 2020, and to enable consumers to use energy efficiently by using energy-saving lights such as the compact fluorescent lights (CFL), T5 tube lights and light emitting diode (LED) lights.
The implementation of the policy is being done in two phases, with the first phase in 2011, seeing a ban on the sale and import of 100-watt incandescent light bulbs.
The second phase is currently being carried out from Jan 1 this year until Dec 31 next year where the government will ban the manufacture, import and sale of the 100-watt lights.
This will save consumers about RM336 million a year if they buy energy-saving lights as incandescent bulbs are less energy efficient and are not as environmentally friendly.
Other countries have also initiated similar policies, with China banning imports and sales of certain incandescent light bulbs starting this month, and gradually extending the ban to those over 15-watt in Oct 2016.
Anticipating huge global demand for LEDs, the Department of Standards Malaysia will help local companies adopt international standards and speed up the industry's adoption of Malaysian Standard (MS) to ensure production of high quality LEDs for export and domestic use.
A total of 12 MS have been published so far, covering safety, testing and performance of LEDs. These international standards were adopted from the International Electrotechnical Commission, where compliance to MS will increase local manufacturers' access to international markets.
International certification within Malaysia is also available, with the first LED-SSL certification centre outside of the US was set up in Penang in 2011 to perform testing in accordance with the standards of the American National Standards Institute.

1 comment:

  1. None of that makes sense....
    All can agree that energy saving is good,
    But banning popular products for a small society gain is not the way to do it.

    "How bans are wrongly justified"
    14 points referenced with Dept of Energy data etc

    In short....

    1. Energy saving is not the only reason to choose a product, whether light bulbs or anything else

    2. Energy saving mandates change product characteristics eg performance, usability, size/weight/appearance as well as price
    - or noone would want those products and a ban on them would not be "needed"
    There is no "free lunch".

    3. The bans are about saving electricity /CO2 emissions
    Light bulbs don't burn coal or release CO2 gas
    If there is a problem - Deal with the problem.

    4. Normally, mandating resource savings is based on resource shortage.
    There is no future low emission and renewable electricity shortage
    - and if there was a shortage of say coal, the price rise would reduce use anyway.
    No need to legislate about it.

    5. The electricity savings involved are marginal for many reasons, as linked.
    A fraction of 1% society energy savings on Dept of Energy data - still not taking into account life cycle (manufacture/transport/recycling) energy factors or that nighttime surplus electricity is available, and wasted, anyway
    (also from coal plant operational factors, as they are slow and expensive to power up and down for lower nightime usage)
    Far more relevant to deal with electricity generation and distribution (eg grid upgrades, smart grids etc)
    and alternative consumption savings eg heating/cooling, or unnecessary product use
    - than banning the personal choice of products.

    6. The product bans are not for usual reason of being unsafe to use - eg like lead paint
    The ban is simply to save electricity.
    Clearly, electricity or its source eg coal could simply have price increases in that case
    - letting people decide for themselves how they wish to use it.

    7. Alternatively, the bulbs could be taxed.
    A tax could be used to lower the price of alternatives ie smaller tax is needed to even up the market,
    in fact even a small tax increase likely changes consumption (and people "not just hit by taxes" in having cheaper alternatives)
    Government can also gain direct income for other society purposes - unlike with bans.

    8. Increase - not decrease- of competition is best of all:
    Free market solutions are therefore best - also to save energy
    Competition keeps down energy cost among electricity providers and product manufacturers themselves
    Rather than ban popular products, Govmt might help new alternatives to market (including energy saving ones, but without any continuing subsidy)
    - and they in turn could use energy saving as a prominent advertising feature.
    After all - supposedly we have "stupid consumers" who buy the "wrong" products, or a ban would not be "needed".
    Given that energy saving is a product and consumer advantage,
    then better consumer information (eg "energy star" effortds, product labelling, public campaigns)
    along with appropriate "Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run" commercials
    (think of Energizer battery, washing up liquid commercials) is the way to go.

    Politicians - often heavily lobbied by manufacturers looking for profits on new patented Green Technology -
    love simple visible media-friendly report solutions that in reality mean nothing.
    It is a pity that so many supposedly intelligent journalists - as in this Sun Daily report - fall for the same trick.