Community | January 01, 2010 | 23 comments

Not a very bright idea: Flawed government scheme leaves homes swamped with 180 million unwanted energy-saving light bulbs

source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240025/Not-bright-idea-Flawed-government-scheme-lea...

Image
MotherForTruth
It wasn't just long-lost elderly relatives giving unwanted gift this Christmas. German-owned energy company Npower were at it too, cramming the already under-pressure postal service with 12 million low-energy light bulbs that households neither asked for nor required.

The packages are part of the company's legal obligation to cut carbon emissions but were sent out despite government advise that many would never be used.

Failure to meet its target for improving efficiency in homes would have led to a fine of more than £40 million, or 10 per cent of the Npower's turnover.

The Christmas delivery takes the amount of free or subsidised low-energy bulbs to 180 million in the past 18 months, leaving the average home with six unused ones.
A government scheme launched in 2008 grossly miscalculated the value of the energy saving bulbs and made the false assumption that every product received would instantly be used in the households most intensively used light sockets.
In reality, though, the bulbs were either stored or disposed of.

Energy companies can hit their targets in numerous other ways, including the much more effective insulation of solid wall homes. This, however, is seven times more expensive

It is estimated that insulating the external solid walls of a three-bedroom semi-detached house costs £8,760 leading to a saving of 18.08 tonnes of carbon. However, government projections claim the same figure can be reached by delivering 452 low-energy bulbs, at a total cost of just £1,342.

The ultimate loser, though, is the consumer. Companies can pass on all the costs of the scheme, with the expected average household energy bill to increase by more than £100 over the next three years.
The Department for Energy and Climate Change have themselves admitted the scheme is flawed.

'Government is increasingly concerned that the number of lamps already distributed has been so high that it may work out at more than the average number of highest-use light fittings in a house.

'As such, there is an increasing risk to carbon savings under the scheme.'

A spokeswomen for Npower admitted she did not know how many of the bulbs would be used.

'There is nothing under [the carbon emissions reduction target scheme] that means we have to get evidence that bulbs are being used. It's up to the customer,' she said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240025/Not-bright-idea-Flawed-governmen...
  1. groups:
    Community,   Green
  2. tags:
    Green,  Energy,  Light,  Consumer,  1 more
  3.     
    |

23 comments // Not a very bright idea: Flawed government scheme leaves homes swamped with 180 million unwanted energy-saving light bulbs

  • jubal
  • 2helenahandbasket
    • 0
      2helenahandbasket  

    • Light bulbs aside, I'm trying to figure out why it is he responsibility of the electric company to insulate peoples' homes. What is the responsibility of the home's owners?

      I've used this type of light bulb for several years now and have grown use to the different kind of light they produce. I do have concerns about the mercury in them and we all know that mercury will end up in the landfills. I don't think we've helped old mother earth one bit by going from one harmful product to another. We've just kind of passed the buck with another feel-good attempt.

    • 2 years ago
  • Danann_Lovatt
    • 0
      Danann_Lovatt  

    • Lighting systems which reflect sunlight through mirrors and fiberoptics into homes and offices, providing it's sunny out, which more often than not it is. Ease depression. Companies are out there doing this, that is the way to go.

      Artificial lights are old, they decrease your Melatonin levels thereby interfering with sleep cycles.

    • 2 years ago
  • nursediesel
  • unimatrix0
    • 0
      unimatrix0  

    • The only failure here is any consumer who is failing to use the light bulb.

      The idea is good. The headline is misleading and implies that green efforts are not worth while. The slant of the article is anti-green; it is misleading propaganda for the status quo.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ricky84
  • unimatrix0
  • simplecj
    • 0
      simplecj  

    • OH COME ON!!! Who could honestly say they can't use a spare lightbulb?? Send me one, if I don't have an empty socket now, I'm sure I will in the near future!

    • 2 years ago
  • jac1992
    • 0
      jac1992  

    • No offence to the states, but why all the hassle?

      I am from Ireland, and as part of the global warming malarky, it was said that ALL lightbulbs in ireland would be switched to energy saving ones, by simply making it easier to buy the "Energy Saving" bulbs on the shops. That meant that we all bought the "Energy Saving" WHEN WE NEEDED THEM!!! Now, my entire house has energy savers.

      I owuld also like to point out that, the energy bill for the house has also reduced significantly, and I have yet to have a problem of the lightbulb breaking, so I have had no problem with the mercury, and that has been for the past 2 years (touch wood)

    • 2 years ago
  • CreditFigaro
    • 0
      CreditFigaro  

    • I am looking forward to the day when we start investing in LED bulbs for the households. Their net benefit is way better than CFLs by an order of magnitude and no mercury. The initial investment is higher, but if we all invested in these, it would cut our energy use substantially.

      If you outfitted your house with LED bulbs, you wouldn't have to change them for nearly a generation! it's crazy!

    • 2 years ago
  • Ricky84
  • Madhatter244
    • 0
      Madhatter244  

    • Most places in the states do this...my electric compamy gave all its customers a box of (12)
      I have light bulbs coming out of my ears

      the CFL is a load of crap...it was a rushed product that is inferior and will be fazed out soon enough

    • 2 years ago
  • spacemikey
    • 0
      spacemikey [removed]  

    • I'm wondering how anyone can push them off as "green" and keep a straight face?

      It's the whole MERCURY thing that ruins them for me, it's not like there are a bunch of places willing to take waste mercury. What happens when A Lot of them start turning up in landfills? I'm doubting most people know they contain mercury or care.

      Not only that a lot of people don't appreciate how harmful mercury is; "Oh I used to play with that when I was a kid", like just another toy...

      This whole CFL thing doesn't seem all that well thought out, and it looks like they could add way more of a problem than any solution they could provide.

    • 2 years ago
  • fun_size
    • 0
      fun_size  

    • I dont understand why they would be unwanted. Give them to charity or just give em away of the streets. Everyone should be using energy-saving light bulbs now anyways. They last way longer than a standard bulb and use less energy which saves you money yearly. Whats not to like?

    • 2 years ago
  • 2hellnwait
  • Monkey_Films
  • Progresshiv
  • MotherForTruth
    • 0
      MotherForTruth  

    • And here again the ultimate loser is the consumer. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. And we have been fooled and fooled, and fooled again! This is sickening.

    • 2 years ago
  • Incredulous
  • treewolf39
  • artemis6
  • regjoeschmo
more from Community:
from the community

top videos