Did it ever occur to the lamp manufacturers (both US AND Europe) to design a lower-wattage/more efficient T12, ie phase IN better lamps versus phase out those they class as less efficient for any reason.

Of course not.

Why?

£££££/$$$$$ of course!

As a manufacturer of both cheap and expensive lamps of the same size (relating to the halophosphate phase-out), what are you going to do when you don't have to make lamps that bring in LESS profit?

Exactly - produce lamps that bring in MORE - the enormous markups on some tri-phosphor lamps, documented in the UK, is evidence of this.

Without mentioning any names, governments would not have been able to pass such legislation without the full support of lamp manufacturers who themselves would not have co-operated unless there was something to gain for themselves. Where on manufacturers' own websites do you see any hostility to this legislation?

I rest my case.

It would be interesting if someone set up a lamp factory on the Isle of Man or similar territories outwith EU jurisdiction.

@ Lee spot on!

You would not be allowed to import the banned things from outside the EU.
For EU most common preheat ballasts the F36T8 and lately F32T8 (don't mix with US F32T8) could be used instead, for bare tube fixtures are available tubular sleeves of T12 diameter (to work with the sealing around the socket).

In US I think the F34T12 was introduced some time ago and the F40T12 ballasts are phased out, to be replaced by F32T8.

I think in normal, healthy market (without any bans) the T12 would disappear anyway, simply because the energy costs going steeply up around the globe.
In Europe T12 were already only nearly dead niche (as the F36T8 compatibility swept them out from vast majority of installations), in US it would take few years more anyway, simply because their operation would become too expensive for commercial sector and without it's market volume they would be way too expensive lamps even for home use.

With all this "global warming" noise all the companies would do exactly the same as they would do anyway, only now they acting as "the ones saving the planet" and so nobody take care anymore, what mess they are really doing around.

If you try to use f32t8 on a rapid start f40 ballast it would draw too much current and fry the ballast. You may be able to use it on the preheat ballasts rated for 32w circlines.

The lower power lamp make sense when a new technology enables lamps to give out the same output for lower wattage

Thats what they did with the T5 - They are designed around retrofitting of installations with the assumptions that :

 - Lanterns will be replaced one for one, ie each T8/T12 lantern is replaced with one T5 lantern of the same size, no moving around of lanterns

 - The T8/T12 is halophosphor

Note how close the Lm output of the T5 is matched with the T8/T12 :

T8 18W/T12 20W Halophosphor daylight - ~1150Lm
T5 14W Triphosphor daylight - ~1150Lm



Compare that to T8 18W 20W Triphosphor daylight - ~1300Lm

Looks like the T8 Triphosphor is nearly as efficient as the T5. In reality, to be fair when comparing, you have to compare them all on HF gear. where the T8 takes 16W and not 18W, then the efficiency comes out really identical. I have no data about the T12 but i expect about the same from all of them



T12 in the current formats in triphosphor is as efficient as it gets. Playing around with wattage (so a lamp like the F34T12) mean playing around with the lumen output by about the same extent, while the Lm/W does not change very significantly

This can be usefull in order to make specifically a retrofit lamp for older technology lamps - Say, if you make a F34 in Triphosphor that is intended to retrofit F40 Halophosphor, it make sense, as it allows to swap the lamps in existing system without moving around the lanterns and saving power

But such F34 won't be superior or inferior to a F40 made in the same technology.... So claiming that the F34 is by itself more "energy efficient" make no sense

Over here, i have consulted some places that want to do "energy efficiency upgrades" and have standard 4x18 Switchstart parabolic troffers. My suggestion is simple, without any need for "retrofit" lamp, just the stock Lumilux T8/865 with its 1300 Lm output :

 - Use the Triphosphor 18W lamps, that use the exact same energy and give more light per lamp

 - In every 2nd..4th lantern* put 2 lamps instead of 4, then you get the light levels back to the original, and now you save energy

* Some places use currently cheap nasty Chinese T8's that give out no more then 800..900Lm, and not the 1150Lm of a good T8/T12. Then 1300Lm really is 1 1/3 times more efficient, so you can really take out lamps in every 2nd lantern and save 1/4 of the electricity....

Result : 13%..25% electricity savings at the upfront cost of replacement lamps, NO lantern replacement or trashing, NO need to convert all at once (can buy lamps progressively as the old ones EOL) then all upfront costs are eliminated, NO failing electronic gear

They do make adapters to fit t5 lamps in t8 sockets, but I font know if it is to run on the original ballast or to replace the ballast in the original fixture but keep the t8 sockets.

They do make adapters to fit t5 lamps in t8 sockets, but I font know if it is to run on the original ballast or to replace the ballast in the original fixture but keep the t8 sockets.

These are usually complete electronic ballasts designed to run from either what the original ballast supplies or from the mains (then the original ballast has to be disconnected).

@Ash: The F14T5HE are rated just 1350lm, because the standard requires the rating to be made for 25degC ambient air.
But when operated at the way more realistic 35degC air (within the fixture, even when that means just an open bottom reflector; in fact that is the temperature these lamps are really designed for), they emit nearly 1500lm, so efficacy of about 105lm/W. So for the 1300lm output, they will consume just a bit above 12W.

They conceal complete ballasts inside of the little plastic housing? I could see using the adapters so you don't have to go from t8 to t5 sockets in a fixture that you want to keep looking fairly nice (there's nothing that nice about t5HO tubes really) and efficient.

What I'm talking about are slim battens with the ballast inside of the "batten" body, which have G13 pins on the ends to facilitate power input and to fit instead of the T8/T12 they intend to replace.
Not seen anything else yet...

Medved : I have few Osram Smartlux 14W/865 laying around, they are rated just 1100Lm/25C. The warmer colors are rated 1200Lm/25C

They reach 1350Lm at 35C. but then why not go and apply the same to T8 Triphosphors

http://www.osram.com/osram_com/products/lamps/fluorescent-lamps/fluorescent-lamps-t5/lumilux-t5-he/index.jsp

The biggest part of the efficacy comes from just being narrow tubes: There is not much mercury vapor in the path to block the UV generated inside of the arctube.

So it really has to be the thin tube to reach that efficacy.

That is the reason, why CFL's went for the same current to T2 tubes - but there it just barely compensates for the terrible shaping.
The T2 would be even more efficient even when in straight format, but they would be way too fragile. Plus the life would become too short (well, for a CFL the 15khours is assumed normal, the linears are at 20k+ hour ratings the basic ones...