Global Warming Heats Motivation to Switch from Incandescents to CFLs

According to the statistics released by the Central Weather Bureau (CWB), the temperature for Taiwan averaged at 24.1 Centigrade throughout 2007, the fourth highest level on record in the decade since 1998. Global warming has become a common issue facing people on the earth and carbon-dioxide emission is the primary culprit behind the changing climate.

Lighting of all kinds today consumes around 15-20% of all the electrical power generated globally. Clearly and as part of the ever-popular move by both industry and consumers to be more eco-sensitive so as to reduce energy usage, to develop and build lighting that is more energy-efficient not only makes practical sense but is also emerging as a trend gathering momentum-one that shall eventually see green lighting replace conventional incandescents and fluorescents to become mainstream products.

Statistics from the International Energy Agency of the United Nations show that of all the lighting installed in residences in 2004 worldwide, 90% were incandescent lamps (GLS) and 75% compact fluorescent lamps (CFL), clearly indicating that the original white-hot light bulb remains the major means of lighting in many countries.

Global sales of incandescent lamps soared to 13.2 billion units in 2003 from 11 billion in 1999, making up over 70% of all lamps sold. The United States and mainland China were the primary markets for such lamps, each absorbing over 2.5 billion units, with Asia outside China together with Russia using some 3.2 billion lamps, and Europe consuming some 1.8 billion units.

Replacing a GLS with a CFL would save the same amount of electrical power whose generation would have produced some 34 kilograms of carbon dioxide. In 2005, the usage of GLS globally consumed 970 terawatts of electricity, indirectly generating some 560 metric tons of carbon dioxide. Based on this current consumption rate and assumption that no effective energy-saving measure is devised, GLS usage will likely burn up some 1,610 terawatts of electricity in 2030, which does not even take into account the additional electricity that could be used by air conditioners for cooling purposes; after all, incandescent lamps are infamous for being inefficient: they turn only 5% of electrical energy into useful light, with the remainder dissipated as sensible heat that, especially in warm climates, only becomes nuisance.

Better But Not Perfect

CFLs, on the contrary are more efficient than incandescent, transforming some 25% of electricity into visible light, hence being cooler and more desirable form of illumination. Such benefit, however, does not take into account the "visual comfort" of fluorescents versus incandescents. Moreover, there seems to be a vicious cycle at work: using incandescents in summers, when power shortage is most frequent, creates undesirable heat output that has to be cooled with air conditioning. That means the more GLS used, the more heat created and hence more cooling by air conditioning is needed, which further consumes electricity. Clearly replacing GLS with CFL is a relatively easy way to reduce energy use during peak hours of electrical consumption.

Royal Philips, a global brand known for quality lighting, estimates that electricity bills can be cut by as much as 51 billion euros, 273 million metric tons of carbon dioxide can be saved from potential power generation, and an equivalent of 265 power plants will not have to be built worldwide annually once incandescents will have been fully replaced by CFLs.

Proven Energy-saver

Since its introduction in the 1970s, CFL lamps have won increasing popularity among consumers worldwide for being excellent energy-savers, which have been delivered in increasing volumes one year after another. The cooler-burning lamps have a bright future as major economies have set deadlines to replace incandescents with CFLs: the European Union by 2009, Australia 2010, and Canada and California, USA both by 2012.

Mainland China has around 2,500 lighting manufacturers producing CFL lamps, turning out over 80% of the worldwide output. In 2007 alone, China produced over two billion of the lamps, with the major manufacturers centered in Zhejiang, Guangdong and Fujian provinces, with the former leading by both value and volume.

As reported for other manufacturing sectors, most mainland Chinese factories are relatively small-scale: Around 90% of them produce less than three million lamps yearly, 5% have annual capacity of 3-30 million lamps, and the remaining 5% with 30-100 million lamps.

Massive Home Market

Expectedly, mainland China's home market for CFLs is huge. Since 2003 and promoted by the authorities, the mainland market for CFLs has been growing at double-digit rate annually-totaling some US$2.8 billion in 2006 just for household types. In January 2008 and to further encourage the use of CFLs, the mainland authorities began an incentive plan: subsidizing household users 50% of their outlay on CFL lamps, and 30% for business users, aiming to eventually raise China's usage of such lamps to 150 million units, saving 29 billion KW of electricity, and reducing some 29 million metric tons of carbon emission.

Philips, Osram and GE, all globally-renowned lighting brands, have cornered some 10% of the lucrative mainland Chinese market for CFL lamps.

Keeping Up With Export Demand

The recent appreciation of renminbi (RMB) and rising commodity-goods prices have forced mainland Chinese CFL makers to adjust export quotations accordingly; meanwhile the mainland manufacturers will continue boosting production capacity to keep up to brisk demands for such lamps worldwide.

Serious Competition

Over the past few years, mainland China has been a serious threat to European CFL makers. Although the European Commission slapped mainland China-made lamps with a 66% anti-dumping tax in 2001, the CFL makers in Europe have been struggling to stay afloat: the number of such manufacturers went from about 4,000 to barely 1,000 by 2006.

Mainland Chinese CFL makers still favor Europe as their top export destination despite the harsh anti-dumping tax and the additional 5% extra cost due to having to be RoHS compliant. Plus the higher margins achievable in Europe has helped to fuel steady growth of China-made CFLs shipped there over the past few years. So far, around one-third of China's CFL-lamp makers are RoHS certified; however, the European Commission retains imposing the anti-dumping tax after having reexamined its 2001 ruling.

America Leads as CFL Buyer

North America's 2007 imports of CFL lamps totaled US$500 million in 2007, surging over 50% annually. As its gasoline consumption, the USA also was the world's biggest importer of CFLs, buying some 87% of all global exports. Unsurprisingly, the U.S. is the biggest buyer of China-made CFLs, hence also the dominant force behind the growth of mainland China's shipments of such cooler lamps.

In 2004, American homes used on average 1.18 units of CFL lamps per household, while consumers primarily buy CFL lamps from big-box stores like Wal-Mart and Home Depot as these volume retailers seem to run very persuasive advertising. Wal-Mart in 2007 ran ad campaigns that helped move off shelves some 100 million CFL lamps, which have been estimated to have cut around US$3 million from electricity bills.

Despite the proven merits of CFL lamps, the penetration rates of such lighting vary among countries: CFLs lit some 3% of all lights combined in the USA in 2004, with the European penetration rate being 10% or so. The Japanese seem to be on the frontline of eco-sensitivity, with the nation using more CFLs than white-hot lamps, including tubular and spherical fluorescents.

In 2005, the United Kingdom consumption of CFL lamps averaged two units per household. Mainland China's rate was 1.5 lamps per household in 2003. India's CFL market has grown rapidly primarily thanks to its robust economic growth in recent years and low acceptance of the lamps in the past. Also, Indian government has pushed very hard the use of CFL lamps. Indian manufacturers put out around 50 million CFL lamps in 2005 and are estimated to boost the output to 172 million lamps in 2009.

Smaller and Hence More Popular

CFL lamps were not widely accepted in early days of their introductions mostly because of their bigger size than incandescent lamps, making them incompatible with existing lighting fixtures, and expensive pricings. In recent years, their sizes have been scaled down to the sizes of incandescent lamps.

CFL lamps have more advantages than GLS counterparts. For instance, CFL is energy conservative and economical as well as less hot burning. Currently, major obstacles preventing CFL lamps from quickly penetrating the market remain price and consumers' unfamiliarity with the lamps.

Osram's studies of Indian market for CFL lamps show that annual sales of retrofit CFL lamps in India are barely 40 million units, accounting for 4% of GLS lamps annually sold in the country. The studies ascribe the low use of the lamps in India mostly to their high prices, unfamiliarity to consumers, and Indian consumers' inadequate awareness of the importance of saving energy and electrical consumption.

Global CFL market involves many potential problems and the primary one is that substandard products are everywhere especially in developing and under-developed economies. End price of a generic CFL is usually under US$1 apiece. Some are even available at barely US$0.6. In countries lacking compulsory measures on CFL lamps and inspection mechanisms, consumers tend to gravitate toward, perhaps naively, substandard products.

Poor-quality-induced Disappointment

The substandard CFL lamps are not energy-efficient as they are supposed to be. Worst yet, they are eco-hazardous after being disposed. Plus substandard CFL lamps have compromised consumers' confidence after first-time purchases due to showing poor quality.

Many countries have worked out quality examination systems for CFL lamps based on the IEC60968 and IEC60969 industrial standards. Those countries that never set up examination capability can hardly determine the quality of the lamps and track the market after the lamps enter into their markets.

Statistics show over 33 countries have their own safety standards for CFL lamps; nine economies have installed Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS), with eight of them demanding the lamps to be examined at authorized institutions and labeled with approvals; four economies are considering adopting MEPS; and 24 countries issue labels to qualified lamps, with three demanding the lamps to be examined at authorized institutions and sold with quality certificates whereas the remaining 21 simply asking suppliers voluntarily declare their conformities with safety standards.

Spending on quality verifications is a huge financial burden: the more verification steps, the higher the expenditure. Unified global standards for CFLs would help makers reduce such certification outlays and raise quality.

(Note: This article is contributed by C.L. Wu, chairman of the Taiwan Lighting Fixture Export Association and president of Yuieh Hsene Electronics Co., Ltd., and translated into English by CENS Lighting staff reporter Ken Liu)