Re daily Mail shock-horror,
yes unfortunately the focus of this ban is about how good or bad CFLs are..

The ban is wrong in itself, in my view, for many reasons:

Europeans (like Americans) choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 8 to 9 times out of 10 (European Commission and light industry data 2007-8)
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings
– no point in banning an impopular product!

If new LED lights – or improved CFLs etc – are good,
people will buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio valves were banned… they were bought less anyway.

The need to save energy?
Advice is good and welcome, but bans are another matter…
people -not politicians – pay for energy, its production, and how they wish to use it.
There is no energy shortage – on the contrary, more and more renewable sources are being developed –
and if there was an energy shortage of the finite oil-coal-gas fuels,
then
1 renewable energy becomes more attractive price-wise
2 the fuel price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products – no need to legislate for it.

Supposed savings don’t hold up anyway,
for many reasons:
http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x onwards
= comparative brightness, lifespans, power factors, lifecycles etc with referenced research

About electricity bills:
If electricity use does fall, the power companies have to put up prices to cover their overheads, maintenance costs, wage bills etc (using less fuel doesn’t compensate much in overall costs).
As with other consumption, those who use less tend to pay more per unit used (and heavy users get discounts).

Emissions?
Does a light bulb give out any gases?
Power stations might not either:
Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
Low emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.

Direct ways to deal with emissions,
with a focus on transport and electricity:
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x

The Taxation alternative
A ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.
We are not talking about banning lead paint here.
This is simply a ban to (supposedly) reduce electricity consumption.

For those who favour bans, taxation to reduce any such consumption would therefore make more sense,
also as governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.

A few pounds/euros/dollars tax that reduces the current sales (EU like the USA 2 billion sales per annum, UK 250-300 million pa)
raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.
It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.
When sufficent low emission electricity delivery is in place, the ban can be lifted
http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html

Taxation is itself unjustified, it is simply a better alternative for all concerned than bans.

This year’s ban affects not only 100W bulbs but *all* frosted bulbs.

CFL technology has changed dramatically in the last four decades – there was very little economic case to switch to them in the 80s compared to now for instance – and the difference between the fluorescent tubes I have in my office (which evil those regulators have transformed over the past two decades precisely to deal with the flicker issue) and the CFL I’m writing by right now. And to an extent they are a red herring because, as I wrote above, the real problem with the over-reliance of incandescent bulbs is not that CFLs are perfect but that LED technology is struggling as a result.

Well, I’m not willing to pay the $34 to read that article, but I note:
a) it’s from 1976;
b) the abstract refers to “fluorescent” light, not CFLs explicitly;
c) it has a sample size of 6.

Presumably you can point me to a meta-analysis? If not, then I would suggest that a single 33 year old paper does not a case make.

You can do better than that, surely?

To approach this from the angle of information rather than argument. As it happens, lava lamps are likely to fall outside the ban.

As a collector with originals going back to the 70s, I cared enough about this to email Mathmos and ask them why they were still marketing new products in the face of it.

I got the following reply:

Thank you for your email and your enquiry about the issue of the restriction policy coming 2010.

I can currently say that we are a member of the lighting association and are in close contact with them. All our products are currently classified as household luminaires and therefore exempt from this restriction.

If there are any changes approaching regarding this exemption or classification we will surely react accordingly closer to this time.

I can not answer what will happen beyond this point but I am sure that our products will remain currently as they are.

Since Mathmos has a brilliant spares section on its website that includes the necessary spotlight bulbs, it appears that lava lamp owners are sorted and will still be able to buy the replacements they need.

Jennie, you and I would clearly have conversational topics in common at any putative party, since I also keep reptiles as pets. But mine can get by on a full-spectrum fluorescent bulb…

I’ve never claimed to be anything other than one-sided – who isn’t FFS? I’d have no problem with the Mail having an agenda if it didn’t advance that agenda by spreading outright falsehoods and uses spurious justifications for stories such as ‘a well placed source who works for the BBC’. If anything I’ve written is actually wrong, feel free to point it out. But if you expect me to apologise for having an agenda, I will if you will.

There ARE other solutions for heat and light available for my snakes, but none of them are as optimal as incandescent bulbs, and using them doesn’t make as much difference to my carbon footprint as whether or not I eat eggs for breakfast and produce a hefty methane emmission thereafter…

Seriously, though, the Mail’s article is one-sided, reactionary, and chooses its arguments to fit a predetermined conclusion, yes. However, this is hardly unexpected: it’s the Mail. From you, I expect better.

I apologise for my lack of perspective.