Opinion
Ban the bulb, save the bulb
With so little public knowledge about energy saving bulbs
and lighting design in general, what hope is there of
bridging the understanding gap, asks Natalie Bell
M
ost people I describe my job to leads to the question, how much energy do plug-in

simply do not understand what domestic appliances actually use and how can these
it entails. As a lighting designer, loads be minimised?
I fi nd this hard to believe, although as To highlight another way to save energy, I’ll use a
a student at art school I, too, was unaware of such a relative of mine as an example. She has an eye for
profession – until I became interested in architecture design but has never had any specifi c training. She
and daylight. recently moved house, into one she had redecorated
The underlying problem is that lighting is often to her taste. I was slightly
overlooked. The aim of good lighting design is to disappointed at the lack of
allow for relevant light levels to perform specifi c care the interior designer
We should
tasks, highlight a special feature or accentuate an had taken over energy
area of importance. The emphasis then lies on the consumption. The kitchen
try to reach
subject and not the lighting. accent lighting alone utilises
a solution to the bulb
Lighting is diffi cult to dissect, as it is part of the design 1,827W, of which 1,785W is
and not the scheme as a whole. If, in general terms, used in low-voltage tungsten
debate that includes
many people do not have knowledge of how lighting halogen lamps and 42W in
both lighting and interior
can affect a space in a positive way, how can they make low-level LED lighting.
the correct lamp choice for a specifi c location? This is then complemented
designers, architects and
Last month’s Journal highlighted the media frenzy with a grid of ceiling-recessed
the construction
over the phasing out of incandescent lamps (News low-voltage downlights for
Analyisis, p18). The lighting profession needs to talk task lighting. Although the
industry as a whole
to the public and to make CFLi (compact fl uorescent accent and task lighting
lamps) issues very clear. are separately switched, this is an excessive and
In general terms, firstly, CFLi’s should not be unnecessary level of light in a 48 metre-square
located in confined enclosures as they overheat. space. How can this be allowed in today’s climate?
Secondly, the recycling of these products needs to be Most newly built house schedules boast minimal
considered due to the mercury content of the lamp. décor arrangements, including discrete recessed
Thirdly, I do believe that constant switching on and downlights in every room.
off greatly reduces the effi ciency of the lamp. The The lighting issues raised above have been
arguments highlighted in this debate in national documented in the Part L Building Regulations, for
newspapers often cloud the actual message that the construction industry to adhere to. However,
the end user needs to digest. But it’s also true to what are the regulations for general domestic
say that the continuing argument of CFLi replacing improvements? How do we control this? I feel it is
incandescent lamps is the struggle of many angry, time to move the argument to the relevant people.
experienced lighting designers against politicians, Create an understanding, not a regulation. Teach
environmentalists and lamp manufacturers. Perhaps the general public as a whole; collaborate with the
the argument on saving energy should shift direction housing sector and designers to produce relevant,
and try to reach a solution that includes lighting thought-out domestic designs; then perhaps we
designers, interior designers, architects and the would not need to ban the bulb. ●
construction industry as a whole.
So, where can we save energy? One thing’s for
Natalie Bell is a designer with Kevan Shaw Lighting Design,
sure: domestic lighting loads are calculated alongside
and is winner of the SLL Young Lighter of the Year for best
plug-in appliances, giving false overall totals. This
presented paper 2009
18 CIBSE Journal March 2009 www.cibsejournal.com
CIBSEmar09 pp18 OpinionBell.indd 18 5/3/09 13:47:56
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76