Hi all. Just been browsing the old interweb and stumbled across this. It was written a few months ago and I can't seem to find much information anywhere else. Surely it's not correct? 

http://www.coolproducts.eu/blog/lighting-timewarp

Looks like HPS is a "wasteful lighting technology", and Halophosphate phosphors are "crude" and "energy-hungry".
But the real question is: What will people do with "lower light"? They won't just install more fixtures, as that would be impractical and they won't really notice it.
They use the same power standards, so the power used will be the same. And don't forget that the eye can't notice small light changes well, if I remember correctly.
The article says that LED can use a tenth of the energy as older lamps, so if replacing a 100 Lm/W HPS lamp, that means 1,000 Lm/W efficiency!

Pff they have no idea what they are talking about. 
Just because these new technologies look shiny and new up front does not mean that they are better for the enviroment in the long run.

Sums up nicely how revolution is going in the lighting industry :

 - Old technologies are inefficient because they are not LED. To put things on scale, LED is 10 times more efficient than the Banned Least Efficient other technology (which is STILL false, Halogens do about 15..20 Lm/W, LEDs dont do 150..200 Lm/W). We dont compare LED to other stuff actually in use

 - Old technologies have low light quality. You are not allowed to choose and use what we think is low light quality

 - If things are not banned users choose them over LED. That is, the lamp bans are essential to keep development and pushing of a technology that otherwise would have limited demand and take place only in few applications



What i can say about the "inefficient" light sources mentioned specifically :

Halophosphor FL : They dont use Rare Earth minerals present in Triphosphor lamps, therefore using Halophosphor lamps where appropriate (decide according to the application) preserves materials we take from Earth. There is no need to use Triphosphors in small office corridors, archive rooms, various technical rooms, fire escape staircases, cable tunnels, security lighting..

Low end HPS (i think of the 70W SON /I here) : Is attractive light source because it is cheap, and provides good perforance for its price. This means that it is a viable energy saving solution for low budget - Better use new luminaire with 70W SON /I than other things you can possibly get for the same cost. Therefore i think that on a large scale the 70W SON /I is benefitting energy saving

I totally agree that the article is poor and factually inaccurate ...but what about the actual statement of the EU "reversing the halophosphate ban"? Does anyone know if there's any truth in this? I've tried searching through the various documents linked in the article but I can't make any sense of it

I'd love to see T12 tubes again on the shelves in B&Q (large DIY chain in the UK)