The great electric lamp deceit

Incandescent lamp

Economical with the truth – not with energy

The Danish Ministry of Transport & Energy claims that everyone can help the environment and reduce their fuel bills by replacing ordinary incandescent electric lamps with low-energy lamps. The Elsparefond omit to mention that the reduced heat output from the latter is made up by greater consumption of oil or gas, since the great majority of radiators in this country are fitted with thermostats (a Danish invention) which automatically maintain a constant room temperature. As much of the electricity consumed in the lamps is imported from Norwegian and Swedish hydroelectric and nuclear power stations, we are actually being asked to increase our contribution to green-house gases. Each of the facts I have mentioned is well known to the media and to many of the general public, yet none of them seems to be upset by this “economy with the truth”, let alone its wider implications for the credibility of public information.

Thermostatic valve controlling
a living-room radiator

You don’t have to be a physicist or an electrical engineer to see this big lie for what it is. Most of the electricity consumed by an incandescent lamp is turned into heat, which is radiated to the rest of the room. If the room temperature is not controlled by a thermostat, then either the room will get warmer than you want, or you will turn down the heating manually to compensate for the extra heat from the lamp. If you replace the bulb with a low-energy source, the consumption of electricity will fall, but the consumption of energy by the space heating appliance will increase to compensate for it. Whether there is a net saving will depend on the efficiency of the heating system and the cost of the fuel beting used by it, compared with the cost of electricity. However, do bear in mind that an incandescent lamp is almost 100 per cent efficient as a heater, whereas even the very best oil and gas heaters are less than 50 per cent efficient.

If your space heating system is electrical (as it is in some Danish homes and most Norwegian homes, for example), then replacing incandescent lamps with low-energy sources will result in zero net change in fuel costs!

In the summer months there is no need for space heating, but there is also much less need for electric lighting, since the daylight hours are longer and people spend more of their waking hours out of doors. Replacing incandescent lamps with low-energy sources out of doors and in rooms that are not normally heated does indeed save energy. The latter also last much longer than traditional light bulbs, so you incur a significantly lower risk of falling off your ladder to replace them.

Just as the sheep produces both wool and mutton, each of which fulfills basic human needs, so the incandescent lamp produces both light and heat, which are also basic human needs.

This great electric lamp deceit is not confined to Denmark. It has been perpetrated in all the world’s industrialised countries, unquestioned by the news media, the democratically elected politicians, the technical press and the academic world alike. The compulsory ban on the sale of incandescent lamps (other than for specialised applications) that has now been introduced into the law in all these countries has been justified using the phoney argument that it is beneficial for the planet. Even though other arguments against the ban have been aired in public, no mainstream climate sceptic has opened his mouth to expose the fundamental lie – not even Bjørn Lomborg, who also hails from Denmark. So this one very durable, very widespread deceit exposes something rotten, not just in the state of Denmark, but in the whole of civilised society.

Sunrise at Angkor Wat, Cambodia.
The light from the sun comprises all the visible
colours in a continuous spectrum

You don’t need to be a lighting expert to be aware that the quality of the illumination from an incandescent lamp is higher than that from a low-energy source. This is no accident, but a consequence of the elegance of nature. The human eye has evolved to make the best possible use of the light from the sun, whose continuous spectrum comprises all visible wavelengths. The sun approximates to an ideal “black-body radiator”. However, an incandescent lamp also emits all visible wavelengths, because it too approximates to a “black-body radiator”, albeit with a somewhat warmer colour owing to its surface temperature, which is much lower than that of the sun. Despite the absence of any conscious tinkering on the part of the lamp manufactuer, its colour is pleasing, harmonious and psychologically beneficial.

Low-energy lamp

Clever researchers have laboured long into the night by the light of their incandescent lamps to find ways of improving the colour of the light emitted by low-energy sources. This colour tends to be displeasing and garish because the mechanism of emission is totally different from that of a “black-body radiator”, and the spectra emitted by these sources comprise several discrete wavelengths that do not fool the human eye. The more you pay for a low-energy lamp, the closer the colour of its emissions can approximate to those of an incandescent lamp, but it will never be a perfect match.

Throughout the 20th century, owning a lamp factory was one of the surest routes to wealth. The technology was low, such patents as covered it soon lapsed, and development costs were zero. Incandescent lamps were designed to fail after an average of 1000 hours, so the demand for them from private consumers was predictable and uninfluenced by fashion. So what were the true motives of powers-that-be for banning these lamps?

• Coercing consumers into using more oil and gas benefits the companies engaged in winning these fuels.
• It reduces the need to invest in additional electricity generating capacity.
• The lamp industry benefits from the increased compulsory sale of lamps that cost more.
• The researchers benefit from increased patent royalties on high-tech products that are subject to on-going development.
• Wealthy industrialised countries benefit by forestalling the migration of low-tech manufacturing to poorer countries, thereby maintaining the gap between the rich and the poor.

What invisible costs does the great electric lamp deceit impose on mankind?

• This absence of transparency by the “powers-that-be” reveals that the ruling elite collaborates across international boarders to implement an agenda that is different from the one that the general public firmly believes they have.
• It defines just how many would-be iconoclasts are in the pockets of the ruling class.
• It demonstrates the mendacity of both sides in the global debate on the influence of people on the greenhouse effect.
• Transparency and political independence are prerequisites for democracy. The lamp deceit shows that government decisions are neither transparent nor independent of other governments.
• Freedom of speech is a hollow phrase if none of the press is prepared to expose this particular deceipt.
• Textbook capitalism depends on market transparency. The lamp deceit illustrates how capitalism really functions.