ASDA and Morrisons make a move on light bulbs

Posted by jamie - 26 July 2007 at 5:30pm - Comments

We're beginning to see the first positive results from the light bulb retailers league table we published nearly two weeks ago. Both ASDA and Morrisons have just announced they will improve their game plan and phase out those power-crazy incandescents by the end of 2010, which moves them a couple of places up the league table, leapfrogging several other retailers.

They were languishing near the bottom with no commitment to get rid of inefficient bulbs, although the relatively low price of their efficient compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) placed them ahead of wooden spoon winner Woolworths. The twin announcements puts them ahead of fellow F-graders Ikea and Somerfield, as well those hiding behind the weak and unambitious government voluntary target who will only be incandescent-free in 2011. So the table now looks like this.

We're still waiting to get the full details from ASDA, but Morrisons was "disappointed" it had been given such a low rating, and was keen to point out the new measures designed to shift shoppers over to CFLs. They're working on more promotions, more shelf space devoted to them, as well as phasing out incandescents with very high wattages by the end of this year.

The fact that two major supermarkets are breaking ranks with the rest and moving ahead of the government's advice shows that our campaign is working. But we want them to do better. Strip those shelves of energy-gobbling bulbs by the end of the year and you'll sit alongside Currys at the top of the league table. Go on, you know you can do it.

Article tagged as: ASDA, climate change, energy efficiency, league table, light bulbs, morrisons, retailers, successes, supermarkets, woolworths

Comments Commenting is now closed

It's all very well for Curry's to make their statement but it's pretty meaningless on the basis that they don't sell light bulbs to speak of!

The biggest issue facing the retailers is lack of supplies of energy saving bulbs from the light bulb makers. Bear in mind that everyone, or at least most countries in Europe, is on the "switch" band wagon, there is just insufficient production of the new energy saver bulbs right now to meet the retailer’s demand if the switch over was attempted any quicker than the UK Government's already optimistic plan suggests.

I know that the lamp makers are investing millions in new production capacity for energy saving bulbs but it does take a little time. I can also tell you that there's a huge passion from the big retailers to get the job done as quickly as they can. Sainsbury, for example, have a whole new shelf layout for light bulbs in time for when the clocks go back which will shift the balance from power crazy bulbs to energy savers.

Another issue is that if we push too quickly we could end up with a backlash from people. We could end up with Retailers importing cheap, poor performing energy saving light bulbs that don't do their job properly and this will put people off the technology.

There have already been scaremongering articles from rags like the Daily Mail who blame the Government for forcing these energy saving bulbs upon us all. They hark back to old myths about these bulbs not being bright enough, cold in colour, taking too long to switch on and come up to full brightness as well as flickering and potentially causing epilepsy. Whilst all of this is just bullshit. If we do push retailers too hard they could buy lamps that don't meet the Energy Saving Trust standards and we'd just turn everyone of these new energy saving bulbs.

By David Schofield - 27 July 2007 at 2:08pm

very true we may put people off if there is too much of a rush however if all the retailers switch over people will have little choice other than to use cfl's

what i would like to see is the dimmable cfl's become availiable from high street stores other than specialist electrical stores e.g. denmans or online at extortionate prices.

JetG. rescue diver extraordinaire.

By jethro - 29 July 2007 at 11:08pm

The problem with the government's policy is that it's purely voluntary - there will be nothing obliging retailers to stop selling incandescent bulbs, even by 2011. As we've seen so many times in the past, companies tend to make change only if they're forced to, either through customer demand or legislation. And there certainly are CFLs out there that are not as good as others, but again legislation for minimum energy and performance standards would be able to solve that.

Jethro - good point about the dimmable bulbs, although again if retailers are stocking nothing but CFLs, then they'll have to widen their ranges. Here's hoping!

web editor
gpuk

By jamie - 30 July 2007 at 12:07pm

AnotherChummy
60Watt normal lamps are wasteful on heat approximately 60Watts, the 14Watt energy efficient lamp only wastes 14Watts of heat giving a nett saving of 46Watts per lamp. Absolutely great on the electric bill.
However the normal lamp does supplement the heating, when the heating is on, even if only by 60Watts. Therefore change the lamps to energy efficiency type, with the heating on, for each lamp changed the heating has to supply 46Watts extra heat!
This means that if the heating is by electricity there is no saving of either money or, and more importantly CO2, during the heating season. If heating is by other means, Coal, wood, gas or oil, it depends upon the cost of supplying that heat as to whether a saving is made or a LOSS.
Lights and Heat are on during the heating season for about 1600 hours. Lights are on on there own in the summer for about 450 hours. So in any case the saving can only about 22 percent. This depends entirely on the cost of the heating per Watt and with poor efficiency would almost certainly be a loss.
CO2 the most important item, when the electricity generators have cleaned up their CO2 it is almost certain that any other form of heating will produce more CO2.
This means that changing to energy saving light bulbs, whilst saving about 22percent of the costs that companies and including GREENPEACE, are saying they will save, will almost certainly increase the CO2 production.
I am suprised that GREENPEACE of all people are pursuing this line with vigour, perhaps they have not understood the full consequences of this change and I know that to do an about face at this juncture would be embarrassing and probably something that they would not do.
If you disagree with these comments and argument please contact me with the reasons that you disagree because I am confident that they are correct being a energy saving engineer for most of my working life.

By Ivanwain - 7 February 2008 at 2:28pm

Hi Ivanwain,

Thanks for posting but please don't spam - once is enough. I've taken the liberty of moving the post above (which you posted on a different page) to this page; all the other pages you posted on had no other comments so it made more sense to have it here.

I think what you're getting at is the argument that incandescent bulbs also provide some level of heating. Yes, they do but it's a really inefficient and expensive way of heating your house. Most domestic heating in the UK is provided by gas, so if you're relying on your electrically-powered 60W bulb to supplement your heating, you're using a different source of energy.

Electrical heating differs from gas heating in that it is woefully inefficient - not necessarily where it's used in central heating, but where it's generated. Two-thirds of the energy available in fuel used to generate electricity is lost as heat. So even before the electricity reaches your home, vast quantities of potential energy is thrown away.

Combined heat and power however, helps solve the problem - capture that waste heat and use it to warm nearby buildings. It's like killing two birds with one stone - burn one lump of fuel to provide both electricity and heat, rather than burning two lumps as we do at the moment.

Either way, using bulbs for heating is a bad move.

web editor
gpuk

By jamie - 7 February 2008 at 3:56pm

It's all very well for Curry's to make their statement but it's pretty meaningless on the basis that they don't sell light bulbs to speak of! The biggest issue facing the retailers is lack of supplies of energy saving bulbs from the light bulb makers. Bear in mind that everyone, or at least most countries in Europe, is on the "switch" band wagon, there is just insufficient production of the new energy saver bulbs right now to meet the retailer’s demand if the switch over was attempted any quicker than the UK Government's already optimistic plan suggests. I know that the lamp makers are investing millions in new production capacity for energy saving bulbs but it does take a little time. I can also tell you that there's a huge passion from the big retailers to get the job done as quickly as they can. Sainsbury, for example, have a whole new shelf layout for light bulbs in time for when the clocks go back which will shift the balance from power crazy bulbs to energy savers. Another issue is that if we push too quickly we could end up with a backlash from people. We could end up with Retailers importing cheap, poor performing energy saving light bulbs that don't do their job properly and this will put people off the technology. There have already been scaremongering articles from rags like the Daily Mail who blame the Government for forcing these energy saving bulbs upon us all. They hark back to old myths about these bulbs not being bright enough, cold in colour, taking too long to switch on and come up to full brightness as well as flickering and potentially causing epilepsy. Whilst all of this is just bullshit. If we do push retailers too hard they could buy lamps that don't meet the Energy Saving Trust standards and we'd just turn everyone of these new energy saving bulbs.

By David Schofield - 27 July 2007 at 2:08pm

very true we may put people off if there is too much of a rush however if all the retailers switch over people will have little choice other than to use cfl's what i would like to see is the dimmable cfl's become availiable from high street stores other than specialist electrical stores e.g. denmans or online at extortionate prices. JetG. rescue diver extraordinaire.

By jethro - 29 July 2007 at 11:08pm

David - fair point, Currys may not be the biggest light bulb retailer so making the switch from incandescents to CFLs was probably easier for them, but the fact is they've done it. They're not relying on excuses about customer demand to hide behind. Sainsbury's shelving arrangements sound interesting - do you have any more info about that? The problem with the government's policy is that it's purely voluntary - there will be nothing obliging retailers to stop selling incandescent bulbs, even by 2011. As we've seen so many times in the past, companies tend to make change only if they're forced to, either through customer demand or legislation. And there certainly are CFLs out there that are not as good as others, but again legislation for minimum energy and performance standards would be able to solve that. Jethro - good point about the dimmable bulbs, although again if retailers are stocking nothing but CFLs, then they'll have to widen their ranges. Here's hoping! web editor gpuk

By jamie - 30 July 2007 at 12:07pm

AnotherChummy 60Watt normal lamps are wasteful on heat approximately 60Watts, the 14Watt energy efficient lamp only wastes 14Watts of heat giving a nett saving of 46Watts per lamp. Absolutely great on the electric bill. However the normal lamp does supplement the heating, when the heating is on, even if only by 60Watts. Therefore change the lamps to energy efficiency type, with the heating on, for each lamp changed the heating has to supply 46Watts extra heat! This means that if the heating is by electricity there is no saving of either money or, and more importantly CO2, during the heating season. If heating is by other means, Coal, wood, gas or oil, it depends upon the cost of supplying that heat as to whether a saving is made or a LOSS. Lights and Heat are on during the heating season for about 1600 hours. Lights are on on there own in the summer for about 450 hours. So in any case the saving can only about 22 percent. This depends entirely on the cost of the heating per Watt and with poor efficiency would almost certainly be a loss. CO2 the most important item, when the electricity generators have cleaned up their CO2 it is almost certain that any other form of heating will produce more CO2. This means that changing to energy saving light bulbs, whilst saving about 22percent of the costs that companies and including GREENPEACE, are saying they will save, will almost certainly increase the CO2 production. I am suprised that GREENPEACE of all people are pursuing this line with vigour, perhaps they have not understood the full consequences of this change and I know that to do an about face at this juncture would be embarrassing and probably something that they would not do. If you disagree with these comments and argument please contact me with the reasons that you disagree because I am confident that they are correct being a energy saving engineer for most of my working life.

By Ivanwain - 7 February 2008 at 2:28pm

Hi Ivanwain, Thanks for posting but please don't spam - once is enough. I've taken the liberty of moving the post above (which you posted on a different page) to this page; all the other pages you posted on had no other comments so it made more sense to have it here. I think what you're getting at is the argument that incandescent bulbs also provide some level of heating. Yes, they do but it's a really inefficient and expensive way of heating your house. Most domestic heating in the UK is provided by gas, so if you're relying on your electrically-powered 60W bulb to supplement your heating, you're using a different source of energy. Electrical heating differs from gas heating in that it is woefully inefficient - not necessarily where it's used in central heating, but where it's generated. Two-thirds of the energy available in fuel used to generate electricity is lost as heat. So even before the electricity reaches your home, vast quantities of potential energy is thrown away. Combined heat and power however, helps solve the problem - capture that waste heat and use it to warm nearby buildings. It's like killing two birds with one stone - burn one lump of fuel to provide both electricity and heat, rather than burning two lumps as we do at the moment. Either way, using bulbs for heating is a bad move. web editor gpuk

By jamie - 7 February 2008 at 3:56pm