Slashdot Mirror
US To Extinguish (Most) Incandescent Bulb Sales By 2012
Engadget has noted a report in the New York Times that that the US has "passed a law barring stores from selling incandescent light bulbs after 2012. 'Course, the EU and Australia have already decided to ditch the inefficient devices in the not-too-distant future, but a new energy bill signed into law this week throws the US into the aforementioned group. Better grab a pack of the current bulbs while you still can — soon you'll be holding a sliver of history."
It's a shame the energy savings will be offset by the increase in energy prices.
GE/CS/IT d- s: a- C++++$ UL+++ P-- L++++ E W+++$ N+ o? K- w---() !O M- V- PS+ PE(++) Y+ PGP+++(+) t+++ !5 X++> R- t
I've been using some compact flourescents for about a year now, and they're nice in some applications but it seems sort of stupid to cast off the old-fashioned light-bulb just yet...
Specifically, I'm talking about lights that dim... CF bulbs do not dim. They are either all the way on or all the way off. Overcoming this would be a huge stride in getting them into every light-fixture everywhere...
Who did what now?
Hopefully this will mean stores will start carrying the dimmable CFL bulbs in greater quantities and lower prices. Damn near every light in my house is on dimmers and while 80% of them I have running CFL bulbs, there's not a good reason these are 5-6x more expensive than standard CFL.
Until there's full spectrum fluorescent lights, you're not going to pry incandescent bulbs out of my hands!
All reptile heat lights are incandesiant, there the only bulbs that produce the right kinds of heat and light for alot of exotic pets (like my bearded dragon) I hope your law makers made an exception. "wont someone please think of the lizards!"
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
So we won't need light bulbs, but SPF 80 Million sunscreen.
My last experiment with non-incandescent lighting didn't go so well. I bought a set of compact fluorescent lights. I put them in and a half hour later they started smoking and then quit working. I'd rather waste a little energy than increase the risk of burning my house down with crappy technology. I hope they come up with something better before then.
Consider the amount of materials going into a compact fluorescent light like copper. They weigh approximately half a pound. Now think of the current incandescent package. Now think of how long a compact fluorescent lasts in reality, which in my tests--yes, I have dated the bulbs that I have installed--have lasted more like eighteen to twenty-four months.
LED's aren't produced large-scale, and nothing other than incandescent can provide the transient light response or color. Try creating a fake transient when you turn on the light by pulsing it. You can tell when a light is pulsed, even to hundreds of pps, and it hurts most people's eyes. Think of modern-day tail lights. This just isn't going to be a nice solution!
Days ago I was reading about this. Is this only 100 watt incandescent bulbs?
I've been using 240V / 250W bulbs in my house for a while now. The filament life is related to the how hot it gets and for how long it is on. 250W bulbs have a MUCH larger filament than 60W bulbs because they're supposed to get brighter. If you run a 240V bulb at 120V, you get out about 1/4 of the wattage, making that 250W bulb look like 50W and also lasting at least four times as long.
Energy saving is fine but the compact fluorescent bulbs contain Mercury and there aren't enough recycling places to make it convenient for Jane Doe to not dump them in trash bags. This means that all this Mercury will end up in landfills and leak and become part of the food chain.
I've seen a lot of outdoor electronic installations that were protected from condensation and freezing by a 100W bulb.
Guess I'll have to finally upgrade my EZ-Bake oven.
Anybody study the effect of mercury contained in those CFL bulbs? I know many people that use CFLs, half seem to know about the lead, less than half of those properly pay to dispose of them properly.
Kevin
Irrational Diversions
"Congress has not specifically outlawed incandescent bulbs, only inefficient ones."
Thankfully I'll still be able to get newer more efficient incandescent bulbs, and LED is slowly becoming reasonable. Fluorescent bulbs shining on an active table saw can give the impression that the blade has stopped, which is really not good for my fingers. Incandescent doesn't do that to me.
But what does it mean for old cartoons?
Will their ideas be extinguished as well?!
CFs dim nicely. Just drop the temperature to 40 degrees F or less. The ones in my garage are barely visible below freezing. IOW, they are impractical for outdoor applications in most climates.
(Dim bulbs. Oh, the temptation to make a political joke is strong...)
"Better grab a pack of the current bulbs while you still can..."
Don't light 'em if you get 'em.
By 2012, they will be able to detect those 'current bulbs' if you put just one online. Flipping the switch will get you a nasty note from your insurance/power/water/communications/medical provider.
This is a case of legislation done right. Instead of banning specific technologies that are inefficient, or mandating specific technologies that are better, the law simply set efficiency standards. While this currently appears to force a shift from incandescents to fluorescents, it leaves the door open for any other technology that comes along, from high-efficiency incandescents to LEDs.
I haven't RTFA, but this is getting ridiculous. I am pretty sure that as adults we are fairly capable of making our own decisions. If the people of this country (er...world) don't wake up soon we are going to find our selves in a situation worse than in 1984.
Check out http://www.republicmagazine.com./ Some of the material on the site may be construed as propaganda, but the majority is legitimate and frightening.
Go Ron Paul!
I live in a 240V country, you insensitive clod!
Actually there are dimmable CF bulbs. At present they don't work quite as well as incandescents for dimming applications but they do exist and work acceptably for many applications. They typically cannot dim all the way to no light, with most stopping at about 20%. Many are reported to buzz when dimmed as well though I've not experienced this myself yet. They also are quite expensive still. A 3W dimmable (equivalent to a 15W incandescent) from Home Depot costs $6.35 last I checked. I use some in my house and they work reasonably well if not quite as well as the non-dimming CF bulbs I use.
That's true, although it'll be hard to get incadescents to meet those energy standards.
However, I am again disturbed by the ability of our politicians to play the "ban it" game in order to appear capable of taking action. They are getting exquisitely efficient at banning various things we use in everyday life. Really, if politicians ban something every time they need to raise $100'000, in a couple of decades they probably will have banned procreation.
Seriously though, if they really cared about the efficiency of the bulbs, and wanted to spend more than a passing gaze at dealing with the problem, I think they would've refrained from such massive ridiculousness. Granted, incadescents are not efficient, but CFLs don't yet have as complete and warm a spectrum (I use them everywhere though), and many decorative light fixtures simply require incadescents.
Wouldn't it have made more sense, to pressure the market economically, rather than legally, and simply levy enough of a tax on the incadescent bulbs, to make them more expensive than the fluorescents, while at the same time using the money to subsidize the LED and CFL technologies?
They will last longer alright, but they will emit more of their energy in the infrared region, and hence be much less efficient for the purpose of lighting. That's called black body radiation.
The easiest way to get to a non-incandescent dimmer light is to have an LED light that can dim out to using 1-N LED's for however many LED's it has. Sure, 1 LED may not be as fractional as what an "analog" light can do, but it's a heck of a lot dimmer than 10,20, etc. LED's.
stuff |
It's like these laws are passed just to keep us consuming at a ridiculous rate..
Outlawing certain light bulbs should NEVER happen in a 'free' country. What about all the people with old ovens, refrigerators, microwaves, etc that require incandescent bulbs?
--- We need more Ron Paul!
The law itself is sound but they should have made it 2020 with an intermediate period of indirect taxation on incadescent ones starting 2015. I fear this one is too strict and may very well backfire if a latter administration decides to overrule it.
Break a bulb and get a mercury in your house in very unhealthy concentrations. We're already giving our kids ADHD with the crap in our foods. How about we give them some more environmental poison! Yeah, that's great.
Seriously, people. I understand why mercury is used in these bulbs, but something has to be done to make them safer. Make them much harder to break, or find a substitute for the mercury.
Oh, and I haven't found a fluorescent bulb that doesn't give me a headache. The light output is never equal to the "equivalent" bulb, and there's something wrong with the color. I'm not sure, but nothing beats a halogen, at least for my eyes.
So, make the bulbs not suck and not poisonous, and I'm all in!
...need to use light bulbs outside, since fluorescents don't ...need a light that turns on and off frequently (like traffic ...want dimmer switches, since fluorescents don't work with them.
tolerate cold well.
lights), cause that uses a lot MORE energy in a fluorescent.
This is just silly. Sure, use the more efficient fluorescents
where they make sense, but don't ban all incandescents just because
the commercials on HGTV keep telling you it will save the universe.
Sure there is. Economies of scale. Dimmable CF bulbs haven't been in production long enough to amortize the fixed costs of production to a reasonable level. Give it time and the price will come down just like the non-dimming CF bulbs did.
Also there is the fact that dimmable CF bulbs have a few technology hurdles still to overcome compared with their non-dimming brethren. I figure those will be solved within the next year or so but that's just a guess.
But not about the fact that they should switch to CFLs where possible. And they should, and I think people are starting to get that, for the fact that it'll save them money on their electric bill if nothing else. My family has been using them for the last decade at least (they used be to far less...compact....and didn't fit everywhere).
But they're also chock full of nasty chemicals, not the least of which is mercury, and ought to be recycled properly. But the public is not largely aware of this, and proper recycling facilities for them are not nearly as wide spread as in places like Japan (where boxes are set out for them at various stores). So when people just start tossing these things in the trash, we're going to have a huge mess on our hands.
YMMV of course but I have been using these in many forms for a long time (years). There have been local giveaway programs sponsored by either the state or the power company, I forget which. My gut feeling is that these bulbs have not lived up to their expected or marketed life expectancy in my house. They're supposed to last many times the length of an incandescent. I just threw another one away two days ago.
I'm caveating the hell out of this, it may be just my house, where I'm using them, etc.....but I don't think they last as long as we've been told.
Someone please tell me just who it is that's going to make sure that all these compact fluorescent bulbs are redesigned so as to eliminate the massive amounts of RFI pollution that most current designs emit?
The same Congress that keeps passing asinine laws like this one, while completely ignoring the low-hanging fruit of the energy efficiency tree? Perhaps the FCC, who more and more is beginning to sound like the marketing arms of multinational corporations? The manufacturers themselves, who don't give a damn about anything but short-term profits, even at the expense of the environment, our health, and their own corporate longevity?
I have no hope for the Great Experiment.
I bought CF lamps when they started becoming available around here. Imagine my surprise when I found that a "100 watt equivalent" CF lamp didn't produce enough light to read by. Literally, a magazine held 2 feet from my face could not be read. The CF produced maybe the same illumination as a 40 watt incandescent light bulb. I'll give it another try sometime, but for now, my house has incandescent bulbs, and I can see fine.
There is no need for such laws - people can "vote" with their wallets. Purchase alternative lighting if you feel the need, but don't assume you have any right to force others to do so. Ditto with the new mileage standards. Those concerned with fuel economy can, and do, purchase vehicles with 35+ MPG. Having an illegitimate national government (it's supposed to be a federal system!) interfere with free market choices never produces the desired results.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Incandescent bulbs are still going to be very useful for places where lighting is needed, but rarely used; I'm thinking of cellars or parking boxes. If you factor in the actual usage rate in those places, it will take a few centuries to get your value back in electricity savings from the cost of going CFL. Additionnally, they will take some time to heat up, esp. in the cold, and will be worth stealing, unlike $.20 light bulbs. This last argument also applies to led lighting.
Overall this kind of initiative is probably a good thing, but I've never seen this aspect addressed.
being forced to replace something to save/conserve/curb energy usage with something that if it breaks, releases a toxic substance.
I'm all for saving energy when possible but with all the panic over lead in toys and other items, don't you think it would be nice not to have to worry about your light bulb breaking and having mercury come out?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I wonder what the profit margins for the fluorescents are? I bet they're higher. Congress rarely does anything unless money changed hands somewhere. Personally I've been buying the fluorescents becuase they are supposed to last a lot longer and I hate having bulbs burn out on me, and I've found them ok for the most part anyway. However I have not bought them to replace all of my light bulbs. There are a few places where the incandescents are better suited such as my dimmer lights and in the bathroom.
The market would have sorted this all out eventually and we would have wound up with better bulbs of both types. Instead now the game has been called off and we'll wind up with more expensive crappier products. Eventually they'll ban all incandescents except for speciality applications and the pressure for the fluorescents to have to compete and improve and become cheaper to displace incandescents will be gone.
*Sigh* Once again it is shown that we (in America) are all now living under a regime of soft fascism.
I like the warmer light of light bulb. The spectral distribution of fluorescent light is different and I personally consider it more aggressive light. It might be due to higher spikes in the spectral distribution. Hallogen light is the worst. I find it aggressive. Banning incandescant light makes sense but I want to be able to buy alternatives which have a similar feel and spectral distribution. When comparing fluorescent, incandescant and LED light one always focuses on the cost and efficiency and not also on the effect it has on people.
I am glad they chose to use standards (or metrics) --based criteria, instead of technolopgy (or implementation) --based criteria.
I blogged about the issue of standards vs. technology in the light bulb debate and the parallels in the Open Source world last March ( Software, light bulbs & standards: Banning incandescent bulbs akin to banning FLOSS ).
I have two 27W CFL (replaced 2x150W)outside my house that work well into the -18 Celsius (0 Farenheit)
that we get several times a year in Montreal. The box did say that the could be used in cold weather but were no more expensive
than the other brands that did not. They were bought in the local big box renovation center.
I am guessing but I think cold weather bulb availability for a national chain would depend where the buyer lives.
If they live in Montana or North Dakota (or Montreal) they may think it was an issue otherwise maybe not.
GE is supposed to release a new incandescent bulb in the next year or two which will have the same effeciency as those crappy CFL's. Has anyone yet done a study of the cost to produce and dispose of incandescent vs CFL? I would not be shocked to find what the common bulb gives up in use it gains back in using less resources.
Almost half of the US needs heated houses half of the year and a lightbulb is a small heater, energy efficiency 100% at that job. Some light as a byproduct. People in North have several kilowatts worth of heaters anyway, adding some bulbs to that is a non-issue.
Replacing 50c bulb with $5 bulb for nothing isn't the brighest move, especially when all these fluorocent bulbs are inductive load (which isn't told) and cause much more real load (low impedance) than the wattage claims. Standard bulb is clean resistance, easy load.
A quibble: When used indoors in a house that is heated electrically (a bad idea in terms of efficiency, I've heard), are incadescent bulbs at all inefficient? I would guess that all of the inefficiency translates to waste heat. But the waste heat heats the house. Granted, they're inefficient for the part of the year where there is no need for heating, and even worse when air conditioning is needed... And nobody changes bulbs by the season. :-)
... and I hate it! Honestly, I can't stand having fluorescent lights in my house, it makes me feel like I'm living in a hospital. I'm perfectly fine with paying the extra electricity costs if it means I can have nice lamplight instead of those hideous, institutional overheads.
Really, sometimes I don't like the rhetoric about "wasting" energy... for me, it's not a "waste" it's a conscious decision to use (and pay) more to get the kind of lights I like. I think a better approach than mandating energy-saving bulbs is to price energy properly in the first place so people can make their own decision about what constitutes "waste".
that we wont be able to display the act of having ideas above our heads anymore?
Unfortunately, the energy and resources needed to create the ballasts in these CF bulbs greatly reduces their overall efficiency.
I replace all my incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent lights. I replace my large desktop computer with a low-energy laptop. I save $ 300 on my energy account. I buy a $ 300 airline ticket to Jamaica. Reduction of greenhouse gases = zero
Energy savings : How much more energy is requried to manufacture a CFL compared to an incandescent? When this is factored into the energy savings equation, are CFs still more efficient than incandescents? My guess is that CFLs are still more efficient overall, but it would be nice to know how much energy is requried to manufacture a CFL compared to an incandescent.
Reliability : I bought 25 CFLs for my house to replace all the incandescents. Two of them died at ~500 hours. One of them died at ~1000 hours. Whats up with that? I thought these things were supposed to last ~6000 hours? The bulbs I got were 13W CFLs from Home Depot. There are six bulbs per box and a box costs $10. Has anyone else also experienced high "infant mortality" CFL failures?
Size : I've noticed some light fixtures cannot accept CFLs because they are too long (measured from the top of the bulb to the base screw).
Dimmer : Most CFLs aren't dimmable. The dimmable florescent lights I've seen (in hospitals for example) behave differently than incandescents when dimmed. The spectrum of incandescent lights changes when it dims. The dimmer you make it, the "warmer" (i.e. longer wavelength) the light gets. This color change is desireable by some people and doesn't happen in CFLs.
Pollution : CFLs contain mercury. How are people supposed to safely discard them? Toss them in the garbage or put them in the recycling?
What about all the people with old ovens, refrigerators, microwaves, etc that require incandescent bulbs?
I'm amused by your definition of "freedom", but in fact appliance bulbs, and a number of other incandescents, are exempted. The much ballyhooed ban on incandescents only affects general use bulbs, such as youd put in a standard light fixture. There are quite a number of exemptions. Appliance bulbs are one. Marine and mine lamps, rough service lamps, vibration resistant lamps, reflector base lamps and sign service lamps are among the common sense exemptions. If you have a candelabra type fixture, its exempt. The same with showcase lamps and something called a silver bowl lamp.
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail497.html#Wednesday
Three Squirrels
I suppose I'll have to make do with Jamie Zawinski's version as I retire the real ones.
Read this to review.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8
This is a NONSENSE bill. It will OUTLAW inefficient incandescent bulbs. The bulb manufactuers are coming out with more efficient incandescents, in addition, they already have halogens. In addition, a number of CF lights dim, as do LEDs. So your argument is as much huey as the bill is. Besides, CFLs will be replaced with LEDs lights within 5 years.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I don't expect this will cause any ripple but my autistic son (Aspergers) has real trouble under CFLs and I have not found a good sub for the ol' incandescent. I suspect there are others with similar issues.
Sigh.
This is really off topic but...
From what I can tell, no, Ron Paul has not articulated specific proposals. (Please correct me with references if I am mistaken) I saw him on TV and his basic "platform" is to abolish the IRS and pretty much every other department and function of the government possible. Lots of populist rhetoric but nothing that would have a snowballs chance in hell of actually getting passed through Congress. Nor did I hear any concrete proposals for how the remaining reduced government would be funded. In principle I don't have a problem with changing the size, scope or function of the government but if we are going to change it I want to hear a compelling argument as to why the new structure would be better. Ron Paul to my mind has not articulated any such argument to my satisfaction.
To relate this to the topic at hand, I'm reasonably sure Mr. Paul would be against legislation mandating energy efficiency standards, like the CAFE standards. But I'm also reasonably sure he doesn't have a good solution for the incentive problems of private enterprise which necessitate such legislation in the first place. As much as it pains me, sometimes the government really is the best way to accomplish important tasks. The trick is not using the government when we really don't need to.
Ah, so a smart person would setup an incandescent bulbs booth on the black market, next to the guy pushing pirated DVDs. I'll be rich!
Free markets can break down in all kinds of ways, usually because there are many factors that can escape monetization. For example, if I make a widget, and the production of my widget secretly poisons the air (and lets assume that it's only a little poison, so that I'm not really hurting anyone, although in combination with my fellow widget producing competitors, we are collectively hurting people), there is no direct way for the market to handle it. Everyone will pay a price (poisoned lungs), yet I will reap only the benefits. The only fair solution to this is government regulation/action, maybe by artificially adjusting the market by requiring that I disclose said poisoning, and maybe then people wouldn't buy my widget. But even better, since the average human in the world is a moron, and is much more influenced by marketing and lobbyists, would be for the government to stop me from poisoning the air to begin with.
I think that free markets are an excellent first choice in most cases. But when they fail, like, when people are too ignorant to buy expensive bulbs to save money and energy and air quality in the long run, it is the governments job to step in for the benefit of all of us.
I respect and admire a strict libertarian position, but it just doesn't map well to reality. I think it is a worthy goal, but you can't let abstract principles cloud your good judgment.
Japanese scientist: Technically, sir, tomatoes are fags. Military scientist: He means fruits.
I bought a number of GE bulbs to replace nearly all the incandescents in my house. On am, I was up at ~5, and turned on the kitchen lights. I have the can lights which had 100 watt equivelent GE CFLs. One of them started sparking, and I saw flames come out. Needless to say, I killed the lights and then looked at that one. Burned pretty bad at its base. At this time, I am replacing all the CFLs with Phillips CFL made in Mexico. Hopefully, higher quality. I still have this bulb and was trying where to send it to. Obviously if it is sent back to GE, they will simply hide it. So, I think that I will send it to UL.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I have lots of cheap Ikea CFL bulbs, and most of them have their fluorescent coils inside of a strong, frosted, bulb-shaped, transparent plastic cover. They are certainly less dangerous than your average glass incandescent light bulb, unless you don't mind the wee ones eating glass shards or touching the wires inside a broken bulb.
Not the Cheapo brand.
I've managed to convince my family to replace all but 3 light bulbs with CF ones.
Main problem was the initial cost - something like $9-10 per CF light bulb.
With incandescent ones costing around $0.40 - its obvious why everyone was against wasting money on fancy light bulbs. It took a lot of talking and I only got to replace them one at a time.
Ahh... but since we are using these CF light bulbs (Philips 100W and 75W ones) none of them has burned out. They are going through their second year now.
Those other 3 incandescent light bulbs have been burning out at a steady rate of about 6 months of use. Philips or "brand X" - the same thing.
Now, with these CF bulbs in place, our electric bill is so low that my father thought that something was wrong with the meter. The number of kWh was just too low.
Thing is... for every kWh of electricity used on lights we spend now - we used to spend five before.
On the other hand... cheap Chinese CF bulbs... I am not really keen on trying those out.
They cost about 2-3 times less then the brand names, but when I see that they have misspelled the land of origin (PRC was spelled LRC)... ummm.. something makes me doubt their quality control.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Wow, you actually managed to find a way to make an incandescent bulb LESS efficient than the current ones!!
Now you have a 60 watt bulb that consumes the power of a 120 watt bulb!
All the money (+ more) that you saved in buying bulbs, is now spent in electricity. (you know, that thing we're trying to conserve?)
rho
I switched to CFL's totally inside the house. This made a big difference in my electric bill...it went down significantly. I have been using them for about four years now and they are worth it. I have 800 equivalent watts of lighting in my workshop for 240 watts of electricity.
.6. Power companies want to see a PF of 1 and that is the most efficient. I have a feeling that there are going to be issues when these really become prevalent and the power companies are going to have to do major PF correction in neighborhoods. Bad power factors just increase the need for power generation capabilities because bad PF's just waste power and provide no returns.
Now for the ugly parts. CFL's don't play too well when it is cold. They take a long time to come up. 20 seconds for a 150 watter to come up to usable brightness in 15 degree weather. I use them on my garage door opener. So I don't get usable light until I get to the garage from the street if I open the door in the street as I am pulling in. Of course, there is the mercury issue. This is the same as the media undercoverage of the mercury in regular T8/T40 fluorescent tubes.
The CFL's pull pulse current and have a far worse capacitive power factor than an incandescent bulb whose PF = 1. I measured the PF of my CFL's here in the workshop and the PF was equal to
Even though the bulbs may meet FCC standards, the power supplies are going to increase the RFI noise levels in general. I personally believe that the FCC RFI emission standards are too loose and sloppy. We should adopt the EU standards which are workable and provide better protections.
Despite their issues, I will use them. Now to replace high wattage with HID's or some similar technology.
-- Aetherburner
Here in The Netherlands the government wanted a similar ban but back pedalled when confronted with the present problems.
As many people in Europe I've been using CF bulbs for some 15 years now.
Over here electricity is a bit more expensive than the price you pay in the US and we tend to have a different attitude towards the environment, like we didn't inherrit it from our parents but have it on loan from our children...
But there are indeed a few places I'm still using incandescent bulbs, mainly where I want to be able to dim.
One solution I'm going to use is in a five-arm candelabra with dual switching, either 2, 3 or all 5 will be on.
Another solution is right now rounding the corner, LED lights.
Especially the home-grown Philips LED's are getting popular, VERY low power consumption and the latest models can be dimmed and even colour controlled via a remote.
Not quite there yet but I'm sure they'll be fine by 2012.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
because it will be cool again!
(then the cops will raid their houses and tase them for making "improvised electronic devices")
The main thing to do when purchasing CFLs is to avoid the junk that's sold at Wal-Mart, Meijer, Home Depot, etc. Also, try to look for bulbs with the Energy Star label, which guarantees that they have electric ballasts (instant-on, no hum), lifespan ratings of at least 6000 hours, and at least a two-year warranty.
I order all of my bulbs online from 1000bulbs.com. While I've had a few issues with bulbs prematurely burning out, but replacements are always quickly sent, free of charge, without requiring me to ship the defective bulbs back.
I haven't bought an incandescent bulb in over two years, and have helped friends and family switch as well. Since I buy bulbs online I can get them in any variant needed - including dimmable, "warm," flame-shaped bulbs for the light fixture in the dining room at my mom's house; PAR-30 shaped bulbs for the cans in my in-law's house (they are far from being environmentalists, but were sick of incandescents burning out, and have been very pleased in the six months they've had the CFLs so far); and 5100K "daylight" bulbs for some areas in my house.
Politics aside, please actually do some research before spouting off FUD.
Compacts aren't equivalent to Regulars for many customers such as myself. The color quality and feel/mood of the light is totally different. Until the manufactures solve this I'll light my rooms with old CRT monitors. Furthermore, they are no better environmentally, they simple trade the energy use issue for heavy metal disposal problems - don't break one around your kids!
If we want to solve the _real_ issue - excessive energy use by lighting - the government should try turning off some excess lights! For example street light that are left on all night would be a good start and help balance the local budgets. The local governments should change zoning rules to not allow excessive exterior lighting left on all the time to save energy (and give us back our night sky at the same time).
I'm not exactly a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian here, but does a ban really make sense here? There are probably applications (other than EasyBake) that require incandescents, and there are probably more than a few people who can't stand CFLs. I foresee these people turning to the black/gray market for incandescents, since they have little alternative.
Instead banning anything, why not tax incandescents so they cost 5x-10x more than the average CFL? That's enough to get the majority of the nation to switch, and you can use the tax money from the rest of the nation to fund alternative energy research. Hell, I think the same philosophy should be used with low-MPG vehicles.
and this is the thanks it gets?
i've had just about enough of your vassar bashing.
Some brands are awful. Some are okay. Some are clearly worse quality than most incandescents. The range here is huge.
I've found that Sylvania bulbs are significantly better than the other brands I've tried, but I had to go through a whole bunch of different makes before I figured this out. If you know of other good brands, please let me know.
How many folks will simply throw the CFL out when they die? Think about all the mercury this will put in our landfills and how many millions of acres will be poisoned as a result?
Classic idiocy from Congress...next time, perhaps, they'll finally figure out that they don't no anything about unintended consequences (who the hell am I kidding?!)
"... but you can love completely without complete understanding." - Norman Maclean, "A River Runs Through It"
The light CFLs give off is dimmer, colder light and flickers at some frequency which gives me a headache and a sense of unease, and is horrible to read under. After time it gives me a migraine.
I haven't tried LED bulbs yet because they're so expensive, but I just hope those don't oscillate.
I wish the government would stop playing nanny and stick to what they're meant to do (tax everything and start wars).
Just add one more thing to the list of stuff people smuggle back from Canada or Mexico
Alcohol, Check
Prescription Drugs, Check
Other Drugs, Check
Light Bulbs, Check
If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
Does the average homeowner really use that much electricity for basic lighting?
Any savings of energy simply offset the growth. Any emissions savings will be gobbled up by industry.
Wealthy people externalize their energy costs; someone else pays for it. As well, industries goes where there is cheap power, either naturally or subsidized by the taxpayers.
So, I reduce my miniscule amount of electricity usage, but my gas heating goes up slightly, and the wealthy do not change their habits and externalize their costs.
Where is the Keynesian tradeoff? Will it only be obvious to you when your government and workplaces have gleaming new buildings with air conditioning, but you swelter in your shack under ugly, flickering lighting like in the movie Brazil?
Great. In my building we tried using CFLs for hallway lighting but they kept burning out very quickly (in weeks). Something about them not being meant for 24/7 use. We're looking at installing motion sensors. CFLs also burned out very quickly in the bathroom when I installed them.
I hope this type if knee-jerk reaction will stop and the government starts looking at more than just short-term stop-gap measures. I suspect the best way of getting people to be more energy efficient is to raise prices on energy. If gasoline cost $10/gallon, people would take a bus or ride a bike. If electricity cost 50c/kWh, they'd turn their lights off (and use candles which would lead to tons of fires, but that's an entirely different issue).
I just talked to a transportation engineer about why carpooling isn't popular. The short answer was that it's inconvenient. We just need to get past the point where the inconvenience will be outweighed by extra cost, and then people will pay attention.
m
Try that and you'll get the GOP all up your ass about increasing the tax burden on the working class.
Not that it ever stopped them before, but that would be pretty piss-poor logic. The Democratic/sane person response would be: "No, the working class will SAVE MONEY by using compact fluorescents. We're just making the savings a little more obvious and up-front." Yeah, the GOP prides itself on being anti-tax, but I don't really understand how can BANNING something be easier than taxing it. Surely there are a lot more people (corporate and citizen) who're much more likely to be pissed off by a ban than a tax.
Anyway, I thought neither party cared about the working class anymore...? Nowadays it's all about pandering to the middle class.
When I first started installing these about 2-3 years ago, the CFLs were advertised as lasting much longer than regular light bulbs. Like 5,000 hours instead of 750 hours. But I'm finding them burning out at about the same rate.
The first ones, were some bulbs in a hallway that burned out after only around two years. I figured this was my fault because the motion sensing switch in that hallway was faulty and sometimes would flick the lights on and off. So I replaced the switch, and then the bulbs.
But then the bulb in the garage door opener burned out. That was the first one I put in about 4 years ago. Figuring an average of being on maybe 20 minutes a day for 4 years... That's only 486 hours. I would have expected a incadescent to burn out in that time period, especially since there's a bit of vibration.
But then this week, one of the bulbs in the entry way light burned out. It's just over a year old, and used maybe 30 minutes a day. We only use that light when we're preparing to take the dog out for a walk.
Now I understand that longevity is statistical, but I'm still shocked that these CFLs aren't really lasting any longer than incadescents. That's something of a pain, considering it's not easy to dispose of these bulbs. I have to take them over to the recyling center.
OK, CFLs or LEDs use less electricity. But the electricity I'm currently "wasting" is still heating the house. And where I live, the heating is on 9 months a year. :) So, for the correct math on how much CFLs save, the gain is only the difference in efficiency between electric heating versus natural gas heating. It's not that all those kWh's are wasted. Which is of course different during the summer months, but then you also have much less the lights on.
Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
But many others will, at your expense.
And even if they truly can't, they'll see great rates on a new kind of mortgage...
I have a few Sylvania bulbs (towards the more expensive side of the spectrum) that have been going since 2002, easily 8 to 10 hours a day.
Check your wiring, it may be crap.
Blar.
So for example, a mix of mostly LED's with a CF or even incandescent to add up to a total white? I tried htis in one of my bathrooms for a while and it seemed to work: there were 3 light socketes and I used 2 CF's and one incandescent and it worked-out nicely (although I later switched out to all CF's.)
Lobbyists are meant to influence governments, not "average humans". And rulers are just as bright when it comes to non-political issues as the average Joe.
A lobby could easily make the government allow or even promote the "poisonous widget" if people don't give a damn about or if they only oppose it lightly.
Will their ideas be extinguished as well?! Nope, it just means that the darker and edgier revamped cartoons will have LEDs representing ideas. I seem to remember a few that used candles because they were set in a time before Thomas Edison's inventions.
I can't believe people still bring this up. This has been discussed on Slashdot plenty o' times before. It is out of complete ignorance, I know, but still. Would you rather inhale the mercury than bury it in a landfill? Would you rather eat it in a fish sandwich? According to the EPA, should should be able to eat about 4 bulbs a week.
The amount of mercury is so small that this issue is laughable.
Japanese scientist: Technically, sir, tomatoes are fags. Military scientist: He means fruits.
Including flashlight bulbs, automotive headlamp bulbs, projector bulbs, and all the hundreds of types of miniature lamps used in electrical/electronic gear over the last century? All the lamps that there are NO "energy efficient" replacements for?
Even in your own home, there are at least 2 places where CFLs aren't going to work--think of the 40W appliance bulbs inside your oven and refrigerator. CFLs don't like extremes of ambient temperature which incandescents tolerate easily. Will it be illegal to replace the bulb in your oven?
This is the kind of crap that happens when clueless lawyers start making engineering decisions...
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
I think a special tax or other such discencentive is a better idea. In some situaitons, an incandescent might be a better idea (like in a freezer.) Don't get me wrong, I switched to CF years ago (because I am cheap and wanted to save on money/power), and for nearly all uses they are great, but it is REALLY hard to find an outdoor rated one and most (all?) of the darn things are made in China. I really hate to be dependant on them for something as basic as ALL our lighting needs.
Just like going to a hamfest -or- vintage electronics show/flea market, you too can set up shop next to the vintage vacuum tube sellers...
God: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
I want my house to have natural light ducts to channel NATURAL light to each room and where its required, even NATURAL LIGHT sockets where I can plug in fiber optic lamps to channel the light to where I need it. Also a way to store this for night time use.
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
This isn't exactly correct, and I thought it might be helpful to clarify it.
With regard to the law, the version sent to the President for signature can be found here.
In fact, the law does not actually prohibit the sale of indcandescent bulbs by 2012. Rather, beginning in Section 312, the law sets efficiency standards, phasing in over time, that current incandescent bulbs cannot meet, but doesn't specify the type of bulb that should be used. Interestingly, it also includes the following provision in Section 321(h)(1) (found on page 95 of the document I linked to):
"REPORT ON MERCURY USE AND RELEASE.--Not later than
1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary,
in cooperation with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, shall submit to Congress a report describing
recommendations relating to the means by which the Federal
Government may reduce or prevent the release of mercury
during the manufacture, transportation, storage, or disposal
of light bulbs."
USA Today's story does a good job of summarizing this issue. {ProfJonathan}
Inefficiency of an incandescent bulb is heat.
Plenty of people heat their house with electricity.
Heat a bulb puts out is heat that a furnace won't have to provide. In places where no AC is used, there won't be any net efficiency gained.
I got rid of all of the incandescent bulbs from my house almost four years ago. I keep just one out back, which I use when it gets really cold to keep my well from freezing. It's nice because I can turn it on from the house and can easily confirm that it is still working by the light coming from under the door without having to go out in the 10 degree weather to make sure it has come on.
I mean, I wouldn't mind paying more for them, just because I use so very few, but I don't want to have to put a ceramic heater out there and risk burning down the housing. Light bulbs are very safe heat sources.
The government should stop thinking it knows better than me. I should be able to make my own choices, God damn it.
Here in the UK, where Euro-Eco-Commies are inflicting the same thing on us, there has been panic buying of incandescents in local shops. We like the colour temperature, you see. Also, we have bayonet not ES bases (advantage being that on 240volts the brass skirt cannot be 'live') so as the good burghers stock up for the grey decades ahead, all you can get in shops is screw threads that no one can ever use.
Why are people clinging so strongly to incandescent light bulbs? GE et al have been fooling you for *years* by making you believe that you were buying *light* bulbs. They're actually *heat* bulbs that happen to produce light as a waste product. Now, while this was a slight improvement over candles back in 1887 (inasmuch as they started fewer fires), it's not exactly something you want in the summertime when it's 35 C, is it? But hey, I guess that's what air conditioning is for. You just use more power to take away the heat from the things that use power in your house.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
I'm going to stockpile 20 years worth of incandescent bulbs, so screw you pussies.
The C.Crane company is already selling LED light bulbs. They are more efficient than even compact fluorescent bulbs.
To understand why the free market will fix the lighting problem, look at the automotive market. When gas prices rose steeply, Americans switched to smaller, more fuel efficient cars. As the sales of SUVs plummeted, Ford, GM, and Chrysler suffered massive losses. Toyota with its arsenal of fuel-efficient vehicles is about to become the #1 automotive company in the world. These delightful events occurred before Congress raised fuel-economy standards in a recent bill.
Similarly, as electricity prices skyrocket, the American consumer will haul his ass to Walmart to buy the super-efficient light bulbs.
Legislation is simply not necessary to fix the problem. The free market will fix the problem.
Turn all the lights off
Use a LED headlamp, it lights up where you are looking, so doesnt waste light. 1W does the work of 26W (CFL) or 100W (incandescent)
Now all we need is a hand crank powered charger for them.
The problem I've seen with CFL's is that the light output of a 60W CFL is less than the light output of a 60W incandescent. How about enforcing some truth in advertising.
"lower quality air, disruptions from climate change etc." can be addressed directly, through strict enforcement of property rights. If you build a coal plant, and it pollutes the air I breathe, I have a cause of action against you. Why do you consider attacking the issue indirectly/inefficiently is required?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
warm cookies in just 2 short hours
but quickly reversed course. We do not need government.
Oh, and fuck you, too.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
1) It's probably more cost-effective and "greener" to let your existing incandescent lights burn out before replacing them than to incur the environmental and economic costs of CFL manufacturing, transport, packaging, etc. Given the simplicity of an incandescent bulb (wire in a bulb) vs. the many parts of a CFL ballast (transformers, electroncs, interconnects, PCB, etc and what's required to produce each), the environmental impact of CFL manufacture has to be much greater than that of incandescents. 2) It's great that a CFL blub can last 10,000 hours (or whatever) but if that ballast gives up part way through and you have to replace the bulb, you've probably wasted any gain over an incandescent - both economically and environmentally. I've had a couple quit working and I currently have another that emits a high-frequency whine (it got relegated to porch-light duty). Hence, I'm waiting for widespread availability of LED-based lighting. I see CFL's as a stop-gap measure. I have been buying them for a few years but only to replace burned out lights or in new fixtures. Plus, LED's provide good dimmability, which can save even more power.
Sure AC, everything works just great for you. Here I have outdoor CFl's fail once a year, compared to about every two years for the incandescent bulbs I used to have... and this has happened a number of times.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A June 2007 article calculated that the overall mercury emission by compact fluorescent lamps is less than the mercury released into the atmosphere by coal-fired power generation for series of equivalent incandescent lamps over the same period.
Overall emissions are unimportant in the GP's scenario of a bulb breaking at home. It is the local cloud that you and your family are exposed to that is more important.
It sure is great to use less energy while we stick it to the poor who can't afford CFL's that give out a decent light with noise noise!
You wonder why the Morlocks looked the way they did? Constant exposure to CFL light. Yuck.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I know some people who keep an incandescent light on in their wellhouse to keep the pump from freezing. If they can't get replacement bulbs, they'll need to outfit the well with a heater, which will be an added expense, and no more efficient.
LEDs can start instantly at temperatures down to -40, which covers most people, but I'm curious what they're going to do around here once winter comes and the temperature hits -100. There's nothing to beat incandescents when it gets REALLY cold.
(Did I mention that I'm at the South Pole Station? Mid-summer temperatures recently rose to -8F, before dropping back to about -20.)
There will always be a few other applications as well. I'm all in favor of promoting more efficient lighting, but there will always be the need for exceptions, and this - quite typical of government - is the lazy way out.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I've been heating an outdoor cat-house for years with a heavy-duty use incandescent bulb. It's not a heating bulb, so it doesn't get too hot, and the lack of light is a sure indicator that I need to replace the bulb. I'm not unique here either, I know many people who heat outdoor animal housing with one or more "general use" incandescents.
A 60 watt tungsten bulb will put out about 890 lumens vs. > 3,000 lumens for a fluorescent bulb of the same wattage. Perhaps you're confusing the actual wattage with the `same as' description on the package.
Are they gonna use flourescent nanotubes inside the tiny little bulbs? And besides, how are the homeless gonna get that warm incandescant fuzzy as they glare in through my windows?
They who can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. B.Fkln
Ah, bills. The legislative equivalent of TFA -- no one bothers to read them. Once again, an article about an act of Congress that doesn't even bother including a bill #, or even the proper short title. Why not just refer to it as "that there new energy bill done passed by them there politicians"?
The section discussed here is about as long as TFA. It's 9021 of HR 3221 ("Short Titles.--This Act may be cited as the ``New Direction for
Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act'')
(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.182&filename=h3221eh.txt&directory=/diska/wais/data/110_cong_bills,
In it, you can see that the only bans are based on efficiency standards, not type of manufacture. For example, 100 watt lamps that do not provide 60 lumens/watt or better are banned. Issues of color spectrum are anticipated and basic measures put into place.
Now if we could apply this method to fuel efficiency we'd actually start making a dent.
Relevant excerpts:
PART 2--LIGHTING EFFICIENCY
SEC. 9021. EFFICIENT LIGHT BULBS.
(a) Prohibition.--
(1) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall issue regulations--
(A) prohibiting the sale of 100 watt general service incandescent lamps after January 1, 2012, unless those lamps emit at least 60 lumens per watt;
(B) prohibiting the sale of general service lamps manufactured after the effective dates shown in the table below that do not meet the minimum efficacy levels (lumens/watt) shown in the following table:
Minimum Efficacy Levels and Effective Dates
Minimum Efficacy
Lumen Range (Lumens/Watt) Effective Dates
200-449 15 1/1/2014
450-699 17 1/1/2014
700-999 20 1/1/2013
1000-1500 22 1/1/2012
1501-3000 24 1/1/2012
(C) after January 1, 2020, prohibiting the sale of general service lamps that emit less than 300 percent of the average lumens per watt emitted by 100 watt incandescent general service lamps that are commercially available as of the date of enactment of this Act;
(D) establishing a minimum color rendering index (CRI) of 80 or higher for all general service lamps manufactured as of the effective dates in subparagraph (B); and
(E) prohibiting the manufacture or import for sale in the United States of an adapter device designed to allow a lamp with a different base to fit into a medium screw base socket manufactured after January 1, 2009.
(2) Exemptions.--The regulations issued under paragraph (1) shall include procedures for the Secretary to exempt specialty lamps from the requirements of paragraph (1). The Secretary may provide such an exemption only in cases where the Secretary finds, after a hearing and opportunity for public comment, that it is not technically feasible to serve a specialized lighting application, such as a military, medical, public safety
application, or in certified historic lighting applications using bulbs that meet the requirements of paragraph (1). In addition, the Secretary shall include as an additional criterion that exempted products are unlikely to be used in the general service lighting applications.
(3) Additional lamps types.--
(A) Manufacturers of rough service, vibration service, vibration resistant, appliance, shatter resistant, and three-way lamps shall report annual
sales volume to the Se
Given the propensity for flouros to induce headaches, OTC pain relievers should see boon.
Most of these bulbs are made in China, where the environmental regulations are much less strict. Therefore, they will be polluting the air manufacturing them. That air still makes it over here. Also, these bulbs are filled with Mercury and Lead, and I doubt people will recycle them. Recycling cans is easy, most neighbor hoods have curb side, and still few people do that. Plus, its another example of being stripped of freedom of choice.
There are some legitimate uses for old-style bulbs. For example, we have a few spots in our house that don't fit the newer kind. There's simply not space in that area. Rather than outright ban them, why not just tax them heavily. That would discourage use without removing the choice altogether. Plus, it's nice revenue for the gov't. I thought they liked that. It's like a "sin tax" that you find on cigarettes, booze, etc.
Table-ized A.I.
most of the low-flow toilets are crap, too - so people are already smuggling the old type into the US.
"If the bulbs were not made unavailable (banned) then there are those that would continue to use them because of either some perceived benefit of incandescents over CFLs, an irrational aversion to change, or for no other reason than to be contrary."
And what's so wrong with letting people make their own decisions? Just because someone might act irrationally or do something "just to be contrary," we should pass a law against it?
Oh yeah, you're one of the enlightened (pun!), and all lesser mortals must follow your lead!
Why is anyone here happy about paternalistic father-knows-best legislation? Get a hold of yourselves.
I simply do not get the criticisms that CFLs are getting here. They're cheaper, more environmentally friendly, and measurably better in just about every way, but people are acting like the movement to switch to them is a big liberal conspiracy. Listen, folks: I'm about as conservative/capitalist as you can get and I love the things. This is the improvement we've all been waiting for. Unless you have very specific needs that can't be well met by CFL bulbs (such as decorative fixtures or a dimmer), there's not any reason to use the old, crappy yellow incandescent bulbs anymore.
Saving money, electricity, and the environment all at once? Everyone should be on this bandwagon. I just don't get where this resistance is coming from. Oh, and don't think of it as "the government legislated that I have to buy certain light bulbs". Think of it as "the government just legislated that my electrical bill will shrink". Nice, huh?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Once upon a time I read an article stating that solid state lighting research is managing to double LED intensity every 18 months. They should reach CFL lumin levels in 2010.
I've also noticed the "flashes" on cell phone cameras are getting rather bright. (They too are LEDs.)
ARMs are not the problem. The foreclosures are mostly in the "subprime" market of weak credit. A decade ago, the US government passed laws basically making it illegal to deny someone a loan just because they didn't have enough income. Seems lots of people were unable to "own" their home due to lack of means. So US Congress tried to "fix" this by forcing lenders to give them loans anyway. Lo and behold, they didn't have enough income to sustain the loan. Now congress is proposing to "fix" this by punishing lenders for "luring" people into unsustainable debt as required by their previous law. While ARMs can be more punishing when interest goes up, there is a huge surge in fixed rate loan foreclosures also.
Since lenders are prohibited from denying home loans except under extreme circumstances, that puts the responsibility for taking on too much debt 100% in the hands of borrowers. If the mortgage limits liability to foreclosure on the home, the borrower is no worse off than if they had rented. The lender is stuck trying to recover their investment from a heavily discounted foreclosure sale. An honest borrower should try to make a normal sale to repay in full and possibly have a little left over (not always possible in a down market).
Ah, bills. The legislative equivalent of TFA -- no one bothers to read them. Once again, an article about an act of Congress that doesn't even bother including a bill #, or even the proper short title. Why not just refer to it as "that there new energy bill done passed by them there politicians"? The section discussed here is about as long as TFA. It's 9021 of HR 3221 ("Short Titles.--This Act may be cited as the ``New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act'') (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.182&filename=h3221eh.txt&directory=/diska/wais/data/110_cong_bills, In it, you can see that the only bans are based on efficiency standards, not type of manufacture. For example, 100 watt lamps that do not provide 60 lumens/watt or better are banned. Issues of color spectrum are anticipated and basic measures put into place. Now if we could apply this method to fuel efficiency we'd actually start making a dent. A snip: PART 2--LIGHTING EFFICIENCY SEC. 9021. EFFICIENT LIGHT BULBS. (a) Prohibition.-- (1) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall issue regulations-- (A) prohibiting the sale of 100 watt general service incandescent lamps after January 1, 2012, unless those lamps emit at least 60 lumens per watt; (B) prohibiting the sale of general service lamps manufactured after the effective dates shown in the table below that do not meet the minimum efficacy levels (lumens/watt) shown in the following table: Lumen Range (Lumens/Watt) Effective Dates 200-449 15 1/1/2014 450-699 17 1/1/2014 700-999 20 1/1/2013 1000-1500 22 1/1/2012 1501-3000 24 1/1/2012 (C) after January 1, 2020, prohibiting the sale of general service lamps that emit less than 300 percent of the average lumens per watt emitted by 100 watt incandescent general service lamps that are commercially available as of the date of enactment of this Act; (D) establishing a minimum color rendering index (CRI) of 80 or higher for all general service lamps manufactured as of the effective dates in subparagraph (B); and (E) prohibiting the manufacture or import for sale in the United States of an adapter device designed to allow a lamp with a different base to fit into a medium screw base socket manufactured after January 1, 2009. (2) Exemptions.--The regulations issued under paragraph (1) shall include procedures for the Secretary to exempt specialty lamps from the requirements of paragraph (1)....
Ah, bills. The legislative equivalent of TFA -- no one bothers to read them. Once again, an article about an act of Congress that doesn't even bother including a bill #, or even the proper short title. Why not just refer to it as "that there new energy bill done passed by them there politicians"?
The section discussed here is about as long as TFA. It's 9021 of HR 3221 ("Short Titles.--This Act may be cited as the ``New Direction for
Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act'')
(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.182&filename=h3221eh.txt&directory=/diska/wais/data/110_cong_bills,
In it, you can see that the only bans are based on efficiency standards, not type of manufacture. For example, 100 watt lamps that do not provide 60 lumens/watt or better are banned. Issues of color spectrum are anticipated and basic measures put into place.
Now if we could apply this method to fuel efficiency we'd actually start making a dent.
Relevant excerpts:
PART 2--LIGHTING EFFICIENCY
SEC. 9021. EFFICIENT LIGHT BULBS.
(a) Prohibition.--
(1) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall issue regulations--
(A) prohibiting the sale of 100 watt general service incandescent lamps after January 1, 2012, unless those lamps emit at least 60 lumens per watt;
(B) prohibiting the sale of general service lamps manufactured after the effective dates shown in the table below that do not meet the minimum efficacy levels (lumens/watt) shown in the following table:
Lumen Range (Lumens/Watt) Effective Dates
200-449 15 1/1/2014
450-699 17 1/1/2014
700-999 20 1/1/2013
1000-1500 22 1/1/2012
1501-3000 24 1/1/2012
(C) after January 1, 2020, prohibiting the sale of general service lamps that emit less than 300 percent of the average lumens per watt emitted by 100 watt incandescent general service lamps that are commercially available as of the date of enactment of this Act;
(D) establishing a minimum color rendering index (CRI) of 80 or higher for all general service lamps manufactured as of the effective dates in subparagraph (B); and
(E) prohibiting the manufacture or import for sale in the United States of an adapter device designed to allow a lamp with a different base to fit into a medium screw base socket manufactured after January 1, 2009.
(2) Exemptions.--The regulations issued under paragraph (1) shall include procedures for the Secretary to exempt specialty lamps from the requirements of paragraph (1). The Secretary may provide such an exemption only in cases where the Secretary finds, after a hearing and opportunity for public comment, that it is not technically feasible to serve a specialized lighting application, such as a military, medical, public safety
application, or in certified historic lighting applications using bulbs that meet the requirements of paragraph (1). In addition, the Secretary shall include as an additional criterion that exempted products are unlikely to be used in the general service lighting applications.
(3) Additional lamps types.--
(A) Manufacturers of rough service, vibration service, vibration resistant, appliance, shatter resistant, and three-way lamps shall report annual
sales volume to the Secretary. If the Secretary determines that annual sales volume for any of these lamp types increases by 100 percent relative to 2009 sales in any later year, then such lamps shall by subject to the following standards:
(i) Appliance lamps shall use no more than 40 watts.
(ii) Rough service lamps shall use no more
It makes sense because with a government-guaranteed demand for CFL, producers are going to spend more on producing exactly the temperature the consumer wants, because the know they will be bought. That's free market for you.
Ah, bills. The legislative equivalent of TFA -- no one bothers to read them. Once again, an article about an act of Congress that doesn't even bother including a bill #, or even the proper short title. Why not just refer to it as "that there new energy bill done passed by them there politicians"?
The section discussed here is about as long as TFA. It's 9021 of HR 3221 ("Short Titles.--This Act may be cited as the ``New Direction for
Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act'')
(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.182&filename=h3221eh.txt&directory=/diska/wais/data/110_cong_bills,
In it, you can see that the only bans are based on efficiency standards, not type of manufacture. For example, 100 watt lamps that do not provide 60 lumens/watt or better are banned. Issues of color spectrum are anticipated and basic measures put into place.
Now if we could apply this method to fuel efficiency we'd actually start making a dent.
A snip:
PART 2--LIGHTING EFFICIENCY
SEC. 9021. EFFICIENT LIGHT BULBS.
(a) Prohibition.--
(1) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall issue regulations--
(A) prohibiting the sale of 100 watt general service incandescent lamps after January 1, 2012, unless those lamps emit at least 60 lumens per watt;
(B) prohibiting the sale of general service lamps manufactured after the effective dates shown in the table below that do not meet the minimum efficacy levels (lumens/watt) shown in the following table:
Lumen Range (Lumens/Watt) Effective Dates
200-449 15 1/1/2014
450-699 17 1/1/2014
700-999 20 1/1/2013
1000-1500 22 1/1/2012
1501-3000 24 1/1/2012
(C) after January 1, 2020, prohibiting the sale of general service lamps that emit less than 300 percent of the average lumens per watt emitted by 100 watt incandescent general service lamps that are commercially available as of the date of enactment of this Act;
(D) establishing a minimum color rendering index (CRI) of 80 or higher for all general service lamps manufactured as of the effective dates in subparagraph (B); and
(E) prohibiting the manufacture or import for sale in the United States of an adapter device designed to allow a lamp with a different base to fit into a medium screw base socket manufactured after January 1, 2009.
(2) Exemptions.--The regulations issued under paragraph (1) shall include procedures for the Secretary to exempt specialty lamps from the requirements of paragraph (1)....t
The other big guys did you think this through before passing the law issue is light dimmers. Most of the incandescant replacements do not handle dimmers very well if at all and there are a scheissload of dimmers in houses.
.
tried fluorescents
don't like them
always find they have an artificial quality
here's my theory
.
the light from incandescent bulbs
(even frosted ones)
emanates from the relatively very small
surface area of the filament
and casts quite sharp shadows
especially noticeable closer to the bulb
.
fluorescents light up equally
over the entire surface of the glass
and cast diffuse shadows
again, especially noticeable closer to the bulb
.
my theory is
incandescents more closely replicate
the way the sun casts light and shadow
and thus seems more natural
(halogens too, but i usually have to dim them)
.
i hope the bulb makers have success
building more efficient incandescents
i will buy them
.
Households have no requirements for properly disposing of CFL bulbs. You just throw 'em in the garbage. So, they all just go to the landfill with all the other trash. (Businesses have different requirements.)
one simply has to make the polluter pay all costs of a lost suit, which provides great incentive to not pollute in the first place. Additionally, application of the law would become extremely efficient as case law developed, so the costs you mention would not be ongoing.
You're other invalid assumption from your previous post is that all users of incandescant bulbs (in this case) use coal power. If I use wind, or solar, or pedal a bike to run a generator, who are you to tell me what my choice of lighting should be? I might decide to use highly energy efficient lighting, but it's MY choice.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I've been trying out LED night lights. At $2 or so each, they're much cheaper than regular lights. Mostly, they've been good, if a little blue. Some have to be oriented carefully because the little light they do put out tends to be concentrated in bright narrow beams. But it's not too hard to point them at a wall or floor. They're also improving. Got 2 of the same brand and model a few months apart, and the 2nd one is noticeably brighter, bright enough to serve as a reading light.
3 out of 11 have failed in a matter of weeks. 2 were LED night light replacement screw in bulbs, which we had controlled by one of those lit light switches. The light switch lights up by trickling current through the light, which is no problem for an incandescent. But the LED is sensitive enough to glow dimly when the switch is "off". The worst part was both quit working after a few weeks. They were defective? That kind of trickle current switch kills them, though I don't see why it should? (No, couldn't find any lit light switches that use an LED.) The other failure I don't know whether the LED or the light sensor died, but it was in a room with a CFL which would gradually brighten. While the CFL was brightening, the LED light would flicker very rapidly, and you could even hear a raspy hum coming from the device while it flickered. A few weeks of that, and that night light quit working.
Another hope is that unlike standard CFLs, LEDs will work very well with dimmer switches. But after that lit light switch, I don't know.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
I have a daughter with migraine headaches. Florescent lighting is a common migraine trigger - so it doesn't belong in her bedroom. I have been buying a few CFLs for 15 years, hoping for the technology to improve. The first ones I bought died in 6 months (electronics died), and you couldn't buy a new base to reuse the perfectly good bulb (with mercury). So I have been installing traditional magnetic ballast flourescents - which actually do last 12 years. I bought a batch of CFs at WalMart 6 months ago, and they aren't dead yet - a good sign. They are annoying because they are dim when you first turn them on, and reach full brightness only after several minutes. This is probably a good thing, and means the electronics are designed to run hot.
There are energy saving applications that CFs are no good at. "On demand" lighting, that is turned on for only a few minutes while you are in the room (florescent lights of all kinds hate rapid power cycling). Dimmers. Winter. Incandescent lights are great for winter. The light is warmer both literally (90% infrared) and psychologically.
Fortunately, banning a particular technology, while boneheaded, is not nearly as boneheaded as mandating a particular technology. People with flicker sensitive migraines can purchase LED lighting - although it is currently quite a bit more expensive. I suppose christmas lights will have to go the LED route also. Sigh. At least the expense will discourage those gaudy "cover the entire house with tiny lights on 2 inch spacing" displays.
I am really sick of this nanny state business.
Much of the problem with this type of legislation is it ignores second and third order effects. Good economics requires looking past the right now. Economics in One Lesson has been around for half a century, and it's still a mystery to too many people.
The lesson:
The "OMG THEY CONTAIN MERCURY" scare tactic is the biggest load of anti-CFL bull put forth out there. The average CFL today contains around four milligrams of mercury, and already several companies are making bulbs that contain about two milligrams. Meanwhile, the increased power consumption from billions of incandescent bulbs being burned puts out kilograms of mercury vapors into the atmosphere every year.
As for lead content, you'd better stop using computers of any kind, because all of them use far more lead during their production than any CFLs do.
I live in snow country. It gets down to zero degrees outside sometimes; it was eight degrees all last week. A compact fluorescent won't even heat up and light in that weather. My electrician warned me not to use 'em for the attic; he said they'd just buzz and nothing much would happen.
Your electrician is wrong. You may want to find another electrician who has kept up to date on current technology.
Old style magnetic ballast fluorescent lights will not start in cold temperatures, but modern CF bulbs will. High Output (HO) fluorescent lamps will also work in low temperatures (they are what is used in a lot of outdoor advertising signs, and look like regular fluorescent tubes but they use a different type of ballast).
I live 50 miles northwest of Chicago and all of my outdoor lights are CF - they take about 30 seconds to come to full brightness at 0 degrees F, but they work fine. I replaced about 500W of incandescent outdoor lights with less than 100W of CF bulbs and I get the same, or better, light output. According to my outdoor thermometer we have been down below 10 degrees F here at night one or two times already this winter and we have not had any problems with the CF bulbs. I found I actually had to put smaller 7W lamps in some of the outdoor fixtures because the 14W lamps were too bright on my porch.
Outdoors and in attics, it's all about incandescent lights.
Maybe in attics where you only use the lights once in a while for short periods, but for outdoor use incandescents are obsolete energy (and money) wasters.
Putting moderation advice in your
30 seconds at 0? What about at -40?
Advertising signs and such generally have the lights on for substantial periods of time and are not done for safety reasons. If it takes 3-5 minutes to come on at dusk NOBODY cares. I care if I can't turn the light on in my garage unless I plan ahead.
The solution to pollution is dilution. Given a fixed quantity of mercury, I'd MUCH rather have it dispersed evenly into the atmosphere than concentrated on my kitchen floor.
Have you ever tried to enforce one of those manufacturer's warranties? The store won't take them back, they say it's the manufacturer's problem. The manufacturer demands that I ship the dead bulb to them, AT MY COST, wait for them to make the determination that the bulb was not "abused" (Did you know that the manufacturer considers using the bulb upside down to be abuse?), and if they determine that they are at-fault (never happens) they send you a coupon for the MSRP off your next lightbulb purchase. So I then have to get in my Suburban and drive to the walmart for my replacement bulb. This entire process presupposes that I have saved a two year old receipt for a friggn lightbulb, by the way. Math question for you: what is the net carbon emitted buy shipping a dead lightbulb to from Kalamazoo to Timbucktoo, followed by a trip in my Suburban to the Walmart in the next county?
All at inordinately inflated prices, and often in form factors different from the original bulb, so they wont physically fit in many fixtures. They also have visual differences which make them unacceptable for use in decorative fixtures.
I agree with the other poster. I've had CFLs get hot enough to melt their plastic bases. Smelled wonderful, I wonder how many formaldehydes and phenols were released into my home when that happened.
A dimmable CFL costs 20 bucks. A dimmable incandescent costs 65 cents. Why should I pay 30 times more for an inferior product? Do you realize that 20 bucks is an hour and a half's labor for the median family in the US, and 3 hours of labor for the 15% of US families who live below the poverty line?
And I suppose that you can buy these in the grocery store next to all the other bulbs, right? I don't have mail order them from a specialty company, or drive my Suburban the 60 mile round trip to the nearest home improvement store? And I'm SURE they're price-competitive with a regular incandescent. Remember, a massive amount of people in the US live in rural areas, and if it's not commonly available in an IGA grocery store, then it's a specialty item.
Unacceptable. My
What are we going to do for dimmer switches with compact fluorescent (CF) bulbs? I have several dimmer switches in my home, they adjust the brighteness, rather than just switching the lights on or off. How do you accomplish that with CF bulbs?
-- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
So uh, we are going to stockpile shitload of incandescent bulbs, and when these bulbs got banned we will pull them out to sell .... Even if we sell them at a price slightly lower that those compact florescent bulbs, that a huge profit right there!
What do you have to say about the americans who bought homes that they could not afford?
The GOP doesn't care ... ;)
about working class people.
What light-bulb you choose isn't the problem. The problem is due to the politicians not letting us do what it takes to be independent.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Also, they are great for growing plants (like this isn't well known on
Have gnu, will travel.
This bill is a great example of the "Brazil"-style bureaucracy (internet--tubes and all--yeah baby!), neo-ninCONpoop, Demo-i-can't-think-for-myself-cratic system we adoringly call (all stand) THE UNITED STATES! It's another fear-based piece of dung law most likely prompted by some congressman/evangelist's belief that thinking types in this country still have light bulbs that pop on over their heads when a smart idea hits.Think tazers & SWAT teams because that is the tool they'll use to fight this War on Lightbulbs. And those who think Uber-Man Ron Paul can save U.S. in a single bound are smoking some good Hindu Kush that they believe will soon be legal in all 50 states come Nov 2008. As bright a light RP is in the sewer pipes of congress, his impact will be a head-first run into an oncoming freight train of sheep who live for twittling nanny's titties. He's got my vote, science help him though.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
This comes as no surprise to anyone who lives in the Washington, D.C. area. The pols here are paid to legislate. So that's what they do. Unfortunately most lack even a rudimentary understanding of economics or of science.
For the uninitiated there is already a tax on incandescent lamps. It's called energy use. Where's the tax? Look at your utility bill. Various government entities tack their little taxes onto every kilowatt hour you use. The more energy you use the higher your tax. Use inefficient lighting (including those "OMG I must have" plamsa HDTVs) and you'll pay for that privilege. This is "a good thing" (see below).
Forcing higher efficiency lighting through legislation was completely unnecessary (except for the political "breast beating"). When enough people vote with their wallet things change. Why should it be otherwise? The "invisible hand" of the market has and will continue to force greater efficiencies far better than ill conceived acts of Congress. Why should Congress tell the people what to do?
Oh yes, my home is almost devoid of incandescent lamps. There are still incandescent bulbs in the fridge and the freezer (hmmm, why didn't the manufacturer put CFLs in there? Think about it. You can figure it out), the oven, the decorative lamps in the dining room and entry "chandeliers", three outside entry door lamps (I'm just "using up" the incandescent bulbs that I acquired with the house; only about 4 left I think), and my old fashioned analog television sets (even my computer monitors are fluorescent backlit solid state devices these days). That's it. Been that way for over 14 years. I didn't need the Congress critters telling me what to do back then. Still don't.
It's not fascism, it's basic human survival. What's that? You don't believe in global warming? Well, I personally don't feel comfortable betting my progeny's survival on your beliefs. Sorry bout that, but I don't know you and probably disagree with you anyway. Anyway, folks have frequently banned outdated, wasteful technologies in the past in the name of the greater good. The incandescent light is definitely one of those. With it's pathetically short lifespan, it's extremely wasteful use of power, and it's propensity to burst when flicked with a little cold water, it's a horrible light source. It's more of a heat source than a light source. It's like repurposing a space heater as a light bulb. This was all so GE could make huge bank selling lots and lots of them back in the day because they burn out so fast. "See, look how fast it turns on! And such warm light!". Incandescents are originally a lowtech scam that is contributing to abuse of the power grid and potentially the degradation of the quality of our planet. Fluorescents and LEDs are far better and get the job done fine. Been using them for years, and I wouldn't even be tempted to go back. When I replaced all my incandescents with them, my power bill very noticeably dropped.
There are *lots* of compact fluorescent full-spectrum bulbs available.
JFGI
In 10 years, both incandescent as well compact-florescent lights will be obsolete for home indoor lighting. LED's might be made from toxic chemicals too, but they can last a long time, they are hard to break, and they are pretty darn efficient. "This is the LED light my grandfather used, still works."
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
The amount of mercury in a CFL is much less than what is released from the burning of coal to generate the power wasted by running an incandescent bulb. PLUS by recycling spent CFL's you can recover even that small amount.
Mercury in CFL's is a red herring. The end result from using CFL's will be less mercury in the environment.
When owning is "better" it's better because you own an asset (the house) which can appreciate in value. A house is an investment, not much different from owning stock in a company or holding a government bond and a house is usually the biggest investment most people make. A house can, and historically usually does, appreciate in value over time by a few percent per year. At least in the US (not so sure about other countries) owning a house has benefits from a taxation standpoint. You can get a significant "return" on your investment through reduced taxes. Generally speaking, owning is better than renting in the long term (greater than 10 years) for most people.
In your case if there really is a $700 difference, renting is only better if you can get a better return on your investment through other investment vehicles (stocks, etc) than you would through the appreciation of the value of the house and any tax offsets. You might be absolutely right for your particular circumstances. Owning is not always better than renting just like renting is not always better than owning. Just depends on the particulars of the situation and the investment alternatives available to you.
And have for years. Thats why they have all those little round dots instead of one big lens.
Local governments save a ton of money this way, not just because of the power costs, but beacause they don't have to have a bunch of guys with bucket trucks running around changing bulbs all the time.
And I'm supposed to scoff at that!? According to Wikipedia, the OSHA maximum occupational exposure to mercury is 0.1 mg/m3. That's one tenth of a milligram spread out over a meter. Somehow you haven't quite convinced me that inhaling four milligrams directly into my lungs isn't going to be a bad, if not a deadly, thing for me.
When I start buying as many computers as I do light bulbs, I'll try to remember your enlightening comparison. Furthermore, we don't have an alternative to lead usage in computers. We do for light bulbs, thus it should be a consideration when deciding what type to develop, market, or use. The GP also made a very good point about the handling precautions of the bulbs that seems quite realistic.
While you probably won't believe me, I am actually a strong supporter of CFL. In fact, I gave my mom a lecture about switching over just yesterday. I have never had any concerns until I read the GP's post, which seemed to be level-headed and even provided a link for me to research on my own. Your rant, on the other hand, providing no convincing arguments and only succeeded in making you appear as an ass. In your effort to discredit the GP, you've only done the so for yourself and somehow gotten modded Informative in the process.
Adapt, adopt, or get out of the way!
Great - now I'll have to go out and buy some halide bulbs and wait forever while they warm up. Seriously the central issue for me anyway is that short sighted overly prescriptive laws hurt everyone. The law simply needs to say that a "light emitting device" must use x watts to produce y lumens over a given spectrum. Then at least incandesent manufacturers can either improve the effeiceny of their bulbs (GE et al) to meet the standard, go out of business or invest in new technologies such as developing practical LED or CNT lighting. CFLs suck/break in cold weather (At least the ones I've ever bought) contain mercury, and use more energy to produce than incandescent bulbs. Lets not contribute to the distruction of our planet by passing good intentioned but poorly written laws.
for once, I'm with the free-market folks. for instance, there are a lot of maintenance replacement things where the filament lag and current characteristics of a lamp bulb are absolutely required for operation of a device. it's not just the classic HP sinewave oscillator.
CFLs are just not workable in very below zero temps, like where I grew up in North Dakota. not until they fire right now at 40 below.
your classic old 200 watt light bulb in series with the electric thingie you're repairing is one classic we'll lose, leading to a lot more exploding line cords when folks try to fix old historic stuff.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
How many Congressmen does it take to replace a lightbulb? How many to replace them all? (the lightbulbs, not the Congressmen!)
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
there's gonna be a run on the pallet-value-pack size if news like this gets out
Let's tackle this point-by-point, shall we? > 1) More mercury enters the environment through the burning of fossil fuel to generate electricty than is contained in a CFL. 2) An old mercury thermometer has up to 100 times the mercury as a CFL. Yes, but it wasn't DUST that you can INHALE. Liquid mercury is also dangerous, but you don't accidentally inhale the stuff by walking around in a room where a thermometer was broken. Let's face it, CFL's are just a bad (and toxic) product whose producers are trying to leverage government regulation and consumer gullibility to gain artificial market penetration before LED lighting gets to a point where their window of opportunity is closed. It is just big-business profiteering with a green veneer.
Let's tackle this point-by-point, shall we?
"1) More mercury enters the environment through the burning of fossil fuel to generate electricty than is contained in a CFL."
"Entering the environment," is not the issue. Even without any burning of Coal (no, not just ANY fossil fuel contains significant levels of Mercury) you have Mercury in the environment. The issue is whether or not the CONCENTRATION of Mercury around HUMANS is unhealthy. When you break a CFL in your home it requires immediate clean-up as it released threatening levels of Mercury DUST into the room.
While you can probably mop with disposable paper towel on solid surfaces (tile, hardwood, etc), if you get it into carpet (the most popular form of flooring in rooms containing lamps) you are hosed. You've basically got to cut up that piece of carpet and replace it unless you want to hire an expensive cleaning service that is insured to handle such materials.
"2) An old mercury thermometer has up to 100 times the mercury as a CFL."
Yes, but it wasn't DUST that you can INHALE. Liquid mercury is also dangerous, but you don't accidentally inhale the stuff by walking around in a room where a thermometer was broken.
Let's face it, CFL's are just a bad (and toxic) product whose producers are trying to leverage government regulation and consumer gullibility to gain artificial market penetration before LED lighting gets to a point where their window of opportunity is closed. It is just big-business profiteering with a green veneer.
Stop mindlessly repeating what you've heard, and think: why would a house appreciate? What would be a cause for appreciation in houses? Can you rely on that? Is a house really a capital gains investment?
Houses don't pay dividends or have earnings growth like stocks do, and they don't pay interest. The most you can say about a house as an investment is that (a) it pays you what it would cost you to rent it (if you own a house, you can rent it out for that amount, or you can live in it, which means you don't have to rent somewhere else); (b) it can serve as an inflation hedge. How exactly do you expect a house to make you money?
Compare it to, say, stocks: stocks represent ownership interest in companies that have a potential to bring to the market valuable goods and services that didn't exist before. Stocks can appreciate because companies invent, sell and popularize new, good stuff, and can command a profit for doing so. That's how you can expect stocks to make you money.
Bonds are either issued by companies, which make money in the way described above, or are issued by governments, who make money through future taxation. Whether future taxation actually brings in any non-funny money depends on whether the economy overall does well, which means that it comes down to the same thing as with stocks: bonds can make you money because companies make the economy grow, and if you own bonds, you share to a limited degree in any growth that does happen.
So again: how do you expect houses to make you money?
Um, you don't achieve a "return" by spending more money to "earn" a tax break. Spend an extra $700 so he can make $196 in tax savings? Doesn't sound like such a great idea.
And you're failing to address the really important thing: all of that extra $700 would go towards interest on a mortgage. Paying interest is not an investment. Paying interest is "throwing money away," which is exactly what people say about renting when they don't think it through.
When the interest on a loan to buy a home, even after it's been adjusted for taxes, is way more than what it costs to rent an equivalent unit, you should expect to do better by renting an investing the difference. You're paying less in expenses overall, and getting more equity in investments that are expected to return more. You're also making diversified investments, instead of putting most of your money into and unproductive asset that happens to be exactly where you live (so that if something bad happens to it, you end up penniless and homeless at the same time!).
I.e., given the returns on stocks and bonds, renting is a no-brainer, in his case.
Are you adequate?
If incandescent bulbs aren't so expensive that they're dying out on their own, they aren't consuming enough energy to make it worth banning them. If phasing in CFLs really will save that much energy, it would have happened on its own by now; energy is money, and people love saving money.
The lack of CFL adoption is telling us that the difference in energy consumption just isn't enough to offset CFL's various costs. I'm no libertarian, but this is one example of a situation that would have been perfect for the free market to arbitrate. If energy rates rise enough to make the difference noticeable, we'll begin phasing out incandescent bulbs on our own.
Until then, this is just another arbitrary edict that further erodes my personal liberty and (marginally) my quality of life.
I live in Wisconsin. You ever try to use a CF bulb in 30 degreees or below? The light output is substantially reduced.
I hate CF bulbs. They dim when it is cold, they cost 3$ a bulb, they DO contain mercury so if you break one and your kid gets in it they ARE in trouble.
I also like the fact that incandescent bulbs make heat. Sure it is a fire hazard at times, but often times it is useful. WTF is my kid going to do w/ her
easy bake oven when she can't find a bulb for it that makes heat?
I've been trying different CFLs for about two years.
All of the one's that I've tried have crummy Power Factors.
OK, I've seen one or two CFLs that you can order on line that have 'high power factors'. But they're more expensive, they're hard to find.
The CFLs that I buy in my local stores are the ones that have big market shares, and their PFs are poor.
The PF for an incadescent bulb is 100 -- it's 'perfect'. It's just a resistor. Voltage and current are 100% in phase.
The PF for all of the CFLs that I've bought so far are between 40 - 60. That's pretty sucky. It basically cuts the efficiency of the bulb in half.
What's the plan for setting standards for high PF CFLs?
If all we can buy is low PF CLFs, we're not getting the advertized advantage of CFLs.
Just imagine if we left it up to clueless Slashdot posters...
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
CFLs do have some limitations. They do generate heat - about 1/4 that of incandescents, but still a substantial amount. From what I hear, most should not be placed upside-down (base up), because their electronics can overheat that way. Even those designed to be used upside-down need ventilation to keep the overall temperature around them low.
I've used one bulb since 2002 or so, and I've since bought several others. That first bulb is still working in a large light fixture, placed horizontally. I haven't had one bulb burn out yet!
Fortunately, incandescents aren't being phased out in favor of just CFLs. From other articles I've seen, you should be able to get halogens with current efficiency until 2020.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
I like the idea behind cfls, but I've noticed recently that whenever I'm in a place that is lighted by them, my vision becomes unfocused and blurry. My eyesight isn't all that great to begin with, but I don't need glasses unless they're really out of focus. In this case I require them when going out. But lately my glasses aren't even helping anymore in these places. I was shopping in a store that just recently put in those bulbs and it was incredibly difficult to see things properly at any real distance away. And no, I'm not nearsighted, so something is not right there. Please tell me that they were just older ones and the newer ones are better than that. Because I don't feel like getting a killer headache caused by blurred, unfocused vision every time I go out somewhere. Answers would be greatly appreciated.
So what? There is also less mercury in a CFL then in an old thermostat.
But the chance of braking open a watch battery or thermostat with normal day to day activity is slim to none.
Kids, dogs, drunk people,etc knock lamps over all the time...
But, its kinda rare for them to smash open a watch battery with hammer and then sniff the stuff thats inside...unless they are in to that sort of thing.
I have to return some videotapes...
According to what, the Nancy Pelosi Theory of Economics? Seriously, what school of economics defines a free market this way? You can criticize free market capitalism all you want, but you can't redefine what a free market is to coincide with your left wing world view. I had a Poli Sci professor who tried to redefine democracy this way because he didn't like its results. That was also arrogant.
According to Wikipedia, not exactly written by those at the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute,
A free market is a market in which there are prices of goods and services, and these prices are set by sellers, based on what they can afford in relation to what affluent people are able to pay.
I'm still looking for the part about it requiring the social conscience of its participants.
We have people who shop at Wal*Mart and think it's great that pickles only cost $3 instead of $3.50.
And why isn't is great? Poor people can now afford groceries. Because you don't like Wal-Mart's labor practices? You feel that I should pay for a grocery checker's health insurance via higher prices or the market isn't really free? What does that have to do with the free market?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I'll be driving my SUV to run over nanny state liberals in their Priuses if you need me.
What BS. How is that a troll? Way to inject your politics into moderation.
Dude, there's no strong-arming here. The servicers are working out distressed loans because it's in the best interest of the lenders; better to have the borrowers continue to make payments at the present rate than to raise the rates and have massive foreclosures. Do you seriously think that lenders will be interested in raising rates if it makes them lose money? It's better get 7% of $300,000 than 9% of $200,000, and that's what the lenders are shooting for.
Really, all the Bush plan does is help the servicers set some common standards for working out the loans, set up a 1-800 hotline for borrowers to call, and publicize it very prominently (with no less than the President involved) so that people will call it. Yes, the government is helping mortgage lenders, which raises a number of issues, but by calling this "strong-arming" you're fundamentally misunderstanding what's going on.
Keep in mind that the private can reject these government arrangements if they want, and have done so in another case.
Are you adequate?
Residential lighting accounts for around 3% of total U.S. electricity usage. You could completely ban all light bulbs of any kind and you would have only a marginal effect on energy loads and on the environment.
By far a bigger issue than incandescent bulbs is air conditioning, especially because it tends to define peak electric loads, which are a bigger problem than off-peak loads. Why not mandate more efficient air conditioning? Or at least mandate that government-owned buildings keep the temperature at something reasonable (not 72 F)? Or at least stick to regulating commercial lighting?
I'm not against government regulation in all cases, but there's a tradeoff between regulating what someone does in their own home versus the benefit of regulating it. In this case the benefit is so small that I wouldn't say it's worth the intrusion.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The right way to do it would be to mandate total energy usage, either through an electricity tax or outright limits. Then people could decide if they want to run their A/C more, or get more efficient lighting, or whatever it is they want to do.
This legislation takes the stupid step of regulating residential lighting, a nearly negligible source of electricity usage (about 3% of the total), while doing nothing for the big sources of electric usage, like A/C.
The government may have an interest in reducing total electricity usage, but it shouldn't be the government's business how people allocate their electricity, and it certainly shouldn't try to start mandating stupid things about the minor electricity usages while ignoring the big ones.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
My personal experience over the past 10 years using compact fluorescent bulbs is this:
In any fixture in which I install one (that previously used incandescent bulbs), the compact fluorescent bulb with a LONGER rated lifespan dies within three months to a year. Without fail. Repeatedly.
Meanwhile in other fixtures of the same kind, I have incandescent bulbs that have lasted over 10 years and are still running fine, having undergone the same usage patterns as the "long" lasting fluorescents.
Prices between incandescents and fluorescents are better now, but back when I first began using them, they were well over 10x the price.
If I calculate what I've spent more in electricity versus the bulb replacement costs, I should have stuck with incandescent bulbs everywhere. Now if one factors in the more complex manufacturing energy requirements and the mercury issues surrounding compact fluorescent bulbs, I have a sinking suspicion that compact fluorescent bulbs are hardly the green panacea they've been purported to be.
I'm really looking forward to the day a good LED-based bulb can match the warm yellow light of incandescent bulbs. I've tried LED and compact fluorescent bulbs from many, many brands and "temperatures"--many alleging to be "warm"--and none (zero, zilch, nada) match the light from incandescent bulbs. Frankly I've never met a fluorescent light that didn't look ugly in my house, nor an LED (the few I've tried so far).
I will definitely be stockpiling incandescent bulbs unless someone can make a CF that will really LAST in the harsh environments where incandescents thrive, and a CF that isn't ugly (i.e. can truly spectral response of an incandescent, not just "spike" or "average" at a "color temperature" that matches although the entirety of the spectral response is far, FAR from that of an equiv. "temperature" incandescent bulb).
The government apparently doesn't care if I waste all sorts of electricity by running my A/C down to 68 F in the summer instead of something more reasonable, doesn't care if I have some ridiculous 1500-Watt computer setup, etc., etc., but they get all upset if I have a 60-Watt incandescent bulb in my house?
I could see taxing total electricity usage, but this sort of micromanagement is ridiculous, especially when it starts from the really minor stuff. Of all the things in my house I could save energy on, fucking light bulbs aren't even in the top-10 list. I could get rid of all my light bulbs and I'd use about the same total amount of energy---my computers, A/C, and electric oven/stove account for nearly all my electricity usage.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
>>> I like the warmer light of light bulb.
Most people don't agree with you.
Admittedly, the study done by Popular Mechanics has too few participants to draw statistically significant conclusions; however, it's telling that all seven of the CFLs they tested were scored as providing higher quality light than a normal incandescent. For most people, then, "light quality" is not going to be a (rational) barrier to using CFLs.
Bye bye E-Z Bake Oven...
>>> Very few people talk about the dangers of CLFs.They contain mercury
"Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime."
4.65mg more = twice as much. Mind you, that's assuming coal-fired electricity. Only half of electricity in the US is coal-fired (link), making incandescent and trashed CFL bulbs turn out to be almost exactly equal in terms of mercury emissions. Many stores (such as Ikea) have free CFL recycling, though, so one would expect a substantial number of those CFL bulbs won't just be thrown in the trash, making CFL a net winner in terms of mercury emissions.
So your rant is simply ill-informed.
CFLs are just as inefficient as incandescent when used to produce heat, such as the infra-red bulbs some people have in bathrooms, bulbs used to produce heat in some heating systems, and the ubiquitous "EZ bake" oven toy. Of course these are not lighting applications. But the cheap bulbs have a place in heating applications. For example, leaving one bulb on in a boat tied up at dock for a while to keep moisture out is a common practice. It's not the light doing the job, it's the heat. And the total heat (including the light that doesn't escape the application space) is a function of the power going in.
They can make CFLs that don't flicker, but they are not as cheap. They can make CFLs that have a color balance closer to incandescent. But they have yet to achieve a CFL that has a true continuous spectrum (the ones marketed as "full spectrum" are not).
I once believed it was the flicker that caused my headaches from fluorescent lighting. But after some study on this, including having the same headaches from DC power fluorescent and LED lights, I have found the real cause is the oscillating focus that comes about from non-continuous (broken) spectrum lighting.
I've tried many CFLs and use some of them in many places already. But there are a few places where an incandescent light is still king and no CFL comes even close to matching. Table lamps used for reading a book (something that seems to be a lost practice these dates) and various task lighting purposes such as a kitchen when I am preparing meals that take some time.
Do let me know when they come up with a more efficient heating element for my electric water heater. I'd very much be interested in that.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Wow, it will be very cool if the Livermore Lightbulb, which has been burning since 1901, becomes the last lightbulb on earth *knocks on wood*
-- Marcio
My family likes to put in incandescents in winter and use them for extra heat, although recently we stopped bothering, and my dad just got a few heat lamps instead xD
What does this mean for my garage lights? The hell if the government is going to tell me that I can't have a 150 watt or 250 watt bulb in my lights over my work bench, over my lift, and in my trouble lights.
Can one of these ass hats point out for me where in the Constitution it says that the government has the power to tell me what lights I can and can not use in my garage???
I've tried fluorescent 150 watt bulbs. They don't fit in the sockets because they have too short of a neck.
I shouldn't even have to go into that detail. What on earth? What is the Constitution I was taught about in school? Just a piece of old paper they take turns pissing on?
And what about photographers? Enough is enough!
Like prohibiton this will be repealed in a short while, but not without making the incandescent mafia and creating REAL capitalism, so this is good for some peoples pockets but we take in the end. Of course the flickering from floresnt will drive people nuts but hey, ecopeople are a step ahead in that respect.
Everyone has their own opinion on eco stuff but do not force them on others, if you take people who live in lower areas of cities, the people would not be able to afford good quality floresent lights and therefore will not be able to work.
Also with new fuel ecomeny, its a good idea but it is hard to change physcics, a heavy duty truck is needed for large farming and service in cities. You could lower the weight of cars by taking out all frames and using only sheet metal to hold it up like a VW Beetle, but for larger cars this would not work. What we need most likely is either hydrogen or other fuel burning cars, or redesign steam engines using modern steel, modern polymers to make light weight frames and covers, we could use coal or any other cheap fuel. If they stopped using semi trucks and used modern built steam engine trains, we would free up alot of diesel to use in other engines. Also spending less on crude oil and saving a part of our ecomeny. We could also use electric cars that get power from wires that use nuclear electrical plants, but people are scarred of nuclear energy because they dont understand it.
Evidently the only way to go if we follow what eco people say is, amercian people be peasnts and slaves while the eco people are our masters. Good world eh?
- CFLs can't be dimmed: it's either on or off with these bulbs, so dimmer switches are worthless
- CFL's have a warm-up time: unlike Tungsten-based bulbs, CFLs take between 5-60 seconds to reach "full brightness", so don't plan on seeing much immediately after turning it on
- CFLs can't be used with a solar control: Solar indicators (seats for type-A bulbs which turn on when the sun goes down) provide variable power and so they can't be used to control CFL's
- CFLs contain mercury: I know the common counter-argument to this is that it is only a small amount of mercury and it doesn't pollute the environment if properly recycled, but there's just something odd about a so-called green bulb containing a known carcinogen and toxin. Especially when we're getting rid of mercury-based thermometers, it seems the wrong time to be mandating a new mercury based product
- CFLs give off harsh light: this is an aesthetic reason, which is why I'm listing it last, but it's still pretty significant. In all the CFL's I've tried, the light tends to be too-white, kind of glaring compared to the warm/soft light of Tungsten bulbs. You'd think this would be the easiest one to solve, but in the half-dozen or so different models of CFLs I've tried, the light they produce is always too harsh.
Maybe LEDs can do better. Or maybe there's another lighting filament that can offer the same energy savings of CFLs but without all the florescent drawbacks. But in the mean time, I'll stick with my Tungsten bulbs and just try to limit how many I have on at a time.>>> The solution to pollution is dilution.
Mercury bio-accumulates - concentrates in animals higher up the food chain - leading to things like our seafood having dangerous levels of it. So that's not a very good solution.
>>> The manufacturer demands that I ship the dead bulb to them, AT MY COST
Buy from a different manufacturer - people here have mentioned ones that replaced the bulbs quickly, freely, and with no shipping required. That your supplier sucks is not the fault of the product.
>>> All at inordinately inflated prices
They're not inflated if that's the cost of the product. Moreover, given that a $4 bulb will save you about $30 in electricity, complaining about the price is perhaps the least persuasive thing you could do.
>>> I've had CFLs get hot enough to melt their plastic bases.
Something was wrong with either the bulb or the lamp, as no bulb (incandescent or CFL) should do that. Again, buy from a decent supplier.
>>> Do you realize that 20 bucks is an hour and a half's labor for the median family in the US
And 50 watts saved x 8,000hrs rated life x $0.10/kWh = $40, representing a net savings of $20.
>>> And I suppose that you can buy these in the grocery store next to all the other bulbs, right?
I don't know about the original poster, but I certainly do. ~$3 each
Unless you're talking about the ones which are rated for termperatures of 0F; if your indoor lights need that rating, though, I would argue you have bigger problems to deal with.
>>> And I'm SURE they're price-competitive with a regular incandescent.
They're about 1/4 the price, once you take powering them into account.
>>> Do you expect me to open my clothes closet and stand there with my hands in my pocket for a
>>> minute before the bulb has warmed enough that I can tell a green shirt from a blue one?
I expect you to be able to tell immediately; I can. Our eyes are so enormously adaptive - we run through about 5 orders of magnitude of light levels on a daily basis - that even the reduced light available instantly from a CFL is going to be more than enough for anything other than reading or similar detail work.
>>>>>> * CFLs with electric ballasts don't "hum" like the old ones did.
>>>
>>> That's right, our products were crappy before, but don't worry, they're slightly less crappy now.
"Slightly less crappy" would be "they hum less"; they don't hum at all now.
It sounds like you've had bad experiences with early CFLs; my experiences with them in the last year have been quite positive. For many of the main uses of light in one's home - e.g., the main lights in the living room that are continuously on for hours at a time - CFLs offer large savings, with no hum, no light quality issues (see the PopMech link I gave), and very little exposure to the fact that they take a minute to go from 50% to 100% light.
I would recommend trying them out again, buying just a few from a reputable supplier and putting them where they'll make the most sense. If you still don't like them. you're out about $10; if you don't mind them, you'll make back that $10 in about 2 months.
I was disappointed to see this kind of thing modded up. But then I saw that it had been modded funny, and my faith in the system was restored.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I use incandescents in my work fixtures, because I'll easily break 3 bulbs in a weekend in the shop. I use CFLs in the house, but it would be wasteful and silly to put them in the shop.
There are some situations where an expensive bulb will be broken by a clumsy dumbass like me long before it would burn out or pay for itself.
It's terribly sad that the battles fought against laissez-faire capitalism were won so long ago that many--you, for example--have forgotten why they were fought in the first place. The system you aspire to will incontrovertibly result in massive concentration of wealth; it ends in neo-feudalism, with a wealthy few imprisoned in gated communities, surrounded by an endless ocean of the desperately impoverished. If you think that you'd end up in the first class, you're a fool; if you think you'd end up in the second and still agitate for that situation, you're a useful idiot. And if you'd want to live as an oligarch, you're a sociopath.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I duly await your outrage about something that's actually happening, rather than the hypothetical idea that poor people are going to get away with something.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I live in Canada and heat my home probably 80% of the year. If I change all the bulbs to more efficient ones, my electricity bill will go down and my gas bill will go up. The same thing would happen if I would change my fridge for a more efficient one. Most electricity in Canada comes from hydro dams, so switching to efficient bulbs may very well increase the CO2 emissions country wide.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Sure, it's implausible for this system to actually work like msauve pretends it will, preventing coal plants from making the air an unbreathable mess--which one might suppose was msauve's real goal in proposing it. But this magical system is freedomlicious, which makes up for it being wallbangingly stupid.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
There has been no vote in parliament, there has been no law passed. It was just an idea put forward by a single politician and his party didn't win the last election.
How annoying is it when the press state a concept or idea as law or fact?
D
PS.
I'm not going to get into the cost or carbon footprint left by the manufacture of these expensive alternative lights.
--- Who put this sig here? ---
This also holds true in practice. I think you may have just left off a "not" in your last sentence.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
There's no constitutional provision for secession (go look if you don't believe me), and in practice, the last time states did that, they were reconquered and placed under military governance. You may have heard about a certain "War of Northern Aggression".
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
What about applications such as Theatre and studio lighting that often explicitly require the color temperature and dimming abilities of incandescent bulbs.
Although many high-intensity theatre lights IIRC don't use incandescent bulbs, virtually all Par cans do. How does the legislation deal with this? Will venues have to re-fit with (expensive and impractical) LED Pars, or is there an exemption built in for this?
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/set/lightbulbs.html
Let's see another light bulb burn 100yrs...
Most fluorescent bulbs aren't recycled; lamprecycle.org has information about where you can get them recycled. My municipality, for example, has a pickup program for burned-out lamps. (They also hand out free CFLs, six per household.) So: even if they're thrown in the trash, they release less mercury into the environment than the equivalent coal usage from incandescent bulbs do. However, the net release can be dropped to zero by recycling them.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
About 20 years ago there was talk of using laser lighting. It was supposed to be able to provide lighting that could be brighter than sunlight, everlasting and using very little energy. Perhaps the lighting industry killed off the idea as their current light bulbs are on a par with under rated fuses. In very old houses you would find bulbs that were many decades old and still worked. No incandescent bulb lasts these days and you should really need a radio license to use the RF type bulbs that cause severe interference to radio.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
When you get rid of "government", you don't actually get rid of government. Something shows up in its place, and whether or not you call it government, it's de facto the same thing. In Russia it's the Mafia; in Somalia it's warlords. In the United States, it'd probably be something corporate. The only faintly plausible idea for living without governance of which I'm aware was outlined in Vernor Vinge's "Conquest by Default", and even that relied on a big honking deus ex machina at the end. (Note that I didn't say that it was a good idea--it'd be a fairly miserable outcome--only that it was plausible.)
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
CFLs suck.
now it is mandated that CFLs replace incandescent because of 'better energy efficiency' -- but has anyone considered that now we're going to have to live with a crappy light spectrum everywhere because of it?
halogens have a better colour spectrum than either incandescent or CFL.
and LEDs are more energy efficient than CFL.
requiring CFLs means that there will be millions of bulbs which DO have toxic mercury and other hard to decompose electronic chip components) to dispose of -- oh wait -- you didn't think they would ever burn out?? but you know its a fact that every single one of those CFL bulbs will be in the dumpster sooner or later.
we should get rid of CFLs entirely by replacing them with LEDs and Halogen.
We banned lead from childrens toys because your "free market" obviously wasn't making the right decisions - all they saw was the price tag.
No sig today...
...not Phillips, and Philips is a Dutch company with focus on light, consumer lifestyle and medical technologies.
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
When I think about it, this seems ridiculous.
How long did it take market forces to vanquish vinyl in favour of CDs? 2 years?
But when we need decisive action on important issues, it's 10, 15, 20 years...
What exactly was government for again, I forgot..
I'm glad someone said it. Inefficient bulbs do need to be taxed to help internalize the environmental costs of electricity production, but I fail to understand why we need an outright ban. This stinks of totalitarianism.
There is an Australian fellow who has done a resonably thoughough analysis of the proposed Australian ban on incandescent bulbs.
It is worth a read, especially the section where he discusses inductive vs capacitive loads and the power factor of CFL's - Its not something I have heard discussed anywhere else but it's probably worth thinking about.
http://sound.westhost.com.nyud.net/articles/incandescent.htm/
they do not radiate tons of obnoxious radio interference.
for appliance bulbs or other "special uses". Here is the text of the article. Please point out what I missed here:
[quote]
The new energy bill signed this week makes it official. When 2012 hits, stores can no longer sell the cheap but inefficient incandescent light bulbs that are fixtures in most homes.
Even so, light bulb manufacturers say that worries about greenhouse gases and the high cost of energy had them moving away from conventional incandescents way before Congress weighed in. For quite some time, they note, they have been trying to soften the light emitted by compact fluorescent lights, bring down the cost of light-emitting diodes -- and yes, find ways to increase the efficiency of incandescents.
Many of the products are already on the market, and more will be available before the deadline kicks in,
"Sure, you'll see more compact fluorescents five years from now, but you would have seen them without any energy bill," said the chief executive of Osram Sylvania, Charlie Jerabek.
Michael B. Petras Jr., vice president of GE Consumer and Industrial -- the unit that includes General Electric's lighting business -- broadened the thought to all forms of lighting. "You'll see different light sources for your decorative chandelier, for your recessed lighting and for your under-cabinet lights," he said. "And I can assure you that all the kinds of light sources are already getting a lot more efficient."
Including incandescents.
Congress has not specifically outlawed incandescent bulbs, only inefficient ones.
In February, G.E. said that it was developing a high-efficiency incandescent that will radiate more than twice the light of conventional incandescents. It expects to make that one commercially available by 2010, and one that is twice as efficient a few years later.
And so far, consumers have been slow to give new products a chance. Compact fluorescents, for example, are already ubiquitous in stores. Many retailers, led by Wal-Mart, have promoted the economics of the bulbs -- though compact fluorescents generally cost six times what incandescents do, they last six times as long and use far less energy.
The EnergyStar program of the Environmental Protection Agency has been pushing compact fluorescents for almost nine years.
"People realize that incandescents are an old, inefficient technology," an EnergyStar spokeswoman, Maria Vargas, said.
The promotions have had modest success. Mr. Jerabek said Sylvania's sales of compact fluorescents doubled in 2006 over 2005, and doubled again this year. But, he notes, they still account for 15 percent of bulbs in use in homes.
Sylvania recently introduced a fluorescent that Mr. Jerabek said mimicked the light of incandescents. He concedes that incandescents are about 10 percent warmer, but he insists that "the average consumer would have trouble detecting the difference."
Compact fluorescent lights have problems beyond light quality. They contain mercury, and few recycling centers will accept them. So at the end of life, they still pose an environmental hazard.
"We're working to reduce mercury, but the amount will never go to zero," Mr. Petras said.
That is why Mr. Jerabek, for one, calls compact fluorescent lights "a temporary fix."
Manufacturers are putting a lot of stock in light-emitting diodes -- or L.E.D.'s. They operate with chips made of nontoxic materials and last for about 50,000 hours, compared with 1,000 hours for an incandescent and 6,000 for a compact fluorescent. A tiny L.E.D. can shed as much light as a cumbersome bulb, which makes them easier to integrate into a home's décor. And, they are extremely energy efficient.
But today, they are too expensive to use for all lighting applications. And, while manufacturers are able to make pretty good colored L.E.D.'s -- the kind that are already available for Christmas tree lights -- they have yet to perfect a white L.E.D. that would be useful for lighting homes.
Manufacturers are worki
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
There are many industries that use special-purpose incandescent bulbs, where a CFL would not work. (I use a special bulb in my darkroom enlarger at home, for example. The color-temperature of the bulb would influence the contrast of the print).
If the market for incandescents shrinks to less than 1% of its current size, will manufacturers still make bulbs available to niche markets?
Unless they up the power frequency in these bulbs to over 1000HZ they are worse for your eyes.
The eye muscles can respond to the 50/60HZ variation in fluorescent lights.
This causes eye fatigue and is generally not good.
Six words speak more eloquently than the paragraph of verbiage I used. Well played, sir--well played.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
There's an excellent article I read about it; I think it's a combination of factors. By nature, a lot of geeks are raised in comparative isolation; the internet has made it even easier to surround oneself only with people who agree with you; there's a disdain for "lesser" people that comes from years of wedgies. It's part of the standard high-school rant that those damned bullies are going to be pumping your gas one day, and why on earth would a geek who's Gotten His try to better that bully's position in life?
(I should disclaim that the above is just cultural criticism, and it's very far from empirical. You'd have to be David Brooks or someone like him to think that that constitutes an actual explanation for the streak of libertarianism that runs through geek culture.)
On a less hand-wavey level, I think there's something very appealing (especially to geeks) about the idea that one can deduce the entirety of politics from first principles. (I speak here of the Non-Aggression Principle.) The problem with this, as Seth Finkelstein points out, is that it just moves the complexity to the definitions of your terms, which are beyond debatability in your edge of the libertarian tent, in much the same way as fundamentalist churches claiming that their sole authority is the bible sweep their assumptions under the rug by pretending that they're not making any. (Fred the Slacktivist has some good discussion on the topic; also here.)
Heck, I went through a libertarian phase when I was profoundly ignorant of how history actually worked. I grew out of it by the time I got to college; it looks like a lot of people never got that far.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
so, if i replace the incandescents with fluorescents, that will mean i waste less energy as heat; so i will have more money to spend... to heat my house. of course in the summer i don't need the heat. and i don't need the light either, until it's late enough that it cools off.
that said, i already replaced all my incandescents with fluorescents. i just am not sure why.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
I'm curious about your headache comment. I am familiar with many people getting headaches from 60Hz light sources. These sources include monitors running at their default refresh rate and older florescent lights. Newer compact florescent lights have electronic ballasts which produce light somewhere over 1,00 Hz, which is not detectable by the human eye. Monitors can be fixed by setting the refresh rates of your machine and those you tend to to somewhere over 72 Hz - you'll might cure somebody's chronic headache. I know I have.
If your headaches are not coming from a 60Hz flicker, I would conclude that you might be sensitive to the color spectrum. Try looking at a few compact florescent bulbs. Some cast a harsh white light, while others cast a warmer light similar to incandescent bulbs. From your comment, it seems you are very aware of the light quality of bulbs. Hopefully a bit of experimentation will help you find a bulb that gives off light which pleases you. .
Thank you so much for posting this! I've pushed mine up to 75hz and it has helped me. I recall having read something about the 60hz issue a while back before I finally took the LCD plunge, but had forgotten about it until I read your post.
Plus I've found that it's good to check the monitor's brightness setting. My new one was set to 100% which was just too bright. Lowering it even 5-10% made a sudden and very noticable difference, the screen is still more than bright enough for my needs without glaring into my eyes like a flashlight.
it's all part of a conspiracy to prevent people from making simple, cheap, and efficient vaporizers!
It sounds like you've had bad experiences with early CFLs;
And here I had been led to believe that they last so much longer. Are we now to believe that any poor sucker who bought into these things five years ago won't* be getting the 10 or 20 years life that the hype led them to believe, unless they're happy with the older buzzy flickery ones? Are we supposed to believe the hype this time because now it's really-really not hype?
Not.... all.... electricity.... comes.... from.... burning.... coal.
You'd better stop using that particular bullet point over and over, because people here on Slashdot are smarter than average.
Also, we probably are entitled to a little more information about how the mercury is recovered safely and efficently in this nebulous 'recycling' scheme you mention. What is the process, and how much of the mercury is recovered. At what energy cost?
Don't figet and fumble through your leaflet looking for a market-speak response, we want real figures, since you're the enthusiast for spouting answers to every reasonable doubt expressed.
Well, it's sad that people call for authoritarian government, given all that. But what you're conveniently leaving out is that people call for government intervention is based on a long history of government intervention working. Rural electrification didn't end in "facism", as you put it; neither did a government monopoly on first-class mail delivery (though it did bring the cities and the countryside together); neither did the establishment of the FDA to limit the number of rats per vat of ketchup, or the establishment of the various grants and loans delineated by the GI Bill. These things were only disasters if you were an oligarch who hoped to stay on top of a pyramidal-shaped society.
As is traditional for the standard internet libertarian, you're counting the worst possible effects of the worst possible government against an airy-fairy concept of a libertarian paradise which you've just hand-waved into existence. While I don't think this makes you evil, it at the very least dishonest.
And, oh hell, I can't believe you're writing this on the internet .
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I dunno where you been the last coupla f---ng years, but I have replaced all the incandescent bulbs (as they burnt out one-by-one) with low energy CFLs.
/. seems to be bemoaning the fate of!
NO ONE has noticed the difference.
The "light spectrum" is just about the same as the old incandescent bulbs; maybe BETTER.
I have occasionally advised people in their homes -
"Why not replace your bulbs with CFLs"?
"Oh we don't like that harsh blue light that shows your pimples, etc".
They are utterly surprised when I tell them that that dinner we had the other night was lit by, AND
as well the bathroom lights, where they went to "freshen up" are ALL CFLs.
Get with the program. This is the 21st century, not your daddy's 1950s Flourescent tube office.
Only my oven lights (and one or two dimmer switch lights) are still using the
NOTORIOUSLY POLLUTING POISONOUS TUNGSTEN filaments that every nostalgic luddite as...le on
.
- aqk
F U
Now-
all you have to do is stop eating at McDonalds, and stop drinking pasteurized dairy products.
and all will be OK.
.
- aqk
F U
I admit I have not read every post here, but everyone seems to get their knockers in a knicker, when the topic of hazardous waste comes up.
... has anyone asked where this disgusting highly toxic dastardly elemental Mercury originally COMES FROM?
"Don't throw your CFLs into the garbage; you will pollute the landfill/dump, and consequently the environment"
Has anyone asked where the Hg (and I think it is elemental Hg, much like the stuuf that fills, along with Ag, the remaining teeth in my mouth) -
Like, uhhh... is it imported from the Moon? Or some other planet?
Some answers, please.
.
- aqk
F U
The place to look for real-world evidence would be California, since incandescents have been off the market there for a couple years. But my cynical expectation is that if there is any data supporting the theoretical mercury exposure hazard of CFLs in the home, it'll be suppressed by the capitalist political machine.
My SUV complies with federal emission rules, and my arthritis won't allow me to sit in one of you low-slung, much-too-small fuel efficient cars, so get over it.Technology won't cure it either, you have to physically do something about it, like change you life style. Like buying "carbon credits", all you are doing is saying "I am rich enough to pay someone else to live, and stay, in a lifestyle less than mine."
Get over yourself. I was talking about old-style tubes in public bathrooms.
Why don't YOU get with the program and take a remedial course in reading comprehension?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
It appears you think the word "government" carries with it certain magical powers. Have you considered that things not calling themselves your government can "F [things] up"? And that perhaps governmental interference can ameliorate these F'ings? And that, furthermore, this is exactly what's happened in the past?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Please do explain to me your understanding of history as it relates to any amount of governance being a bad thing, especially with regards to the examples of government-free areas such as Somalia in the mid-1990s and modern-day Iraq outside the Green Zone.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Even though a nuclear power plant does not produce CO2, the production chain from uranium ore to fuel rods does. Also, the amount of uranium ore which is rich enough to be worth mining is limited. So even if you ignore the issue of nuclear waste, it's still worth it to try and use as little nuclear-generated power as possible.
We have an electric company here that allows you to order CFLs and other energy saving devices from them for 0 euros and pay them a monthly amount equal to the estimated cost savings, until the device is paid for. That way, the initial cost of CFLs is zero and in a year from now you'll start saving money on your electricity bill.
If you happen to be able to read Dutch, you can find details here.
("0 euros" is a common marketing term here, it means "no initial payment but there are strings attached", for example a mobile phone with a subscription - advertising something as "free" is not allowed if you have to buy something else with it, as far as I know)
How do you make your car work ? Do you smash it with a hammer first before turning on the key?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... is a basic necessity.
People failing to appreciate that show a lack of economical wherewithal comparable to the one of people contracting mortgages they could not service.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Because nuclear power is a subsidized, uneconomic, dangerous white elephant.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I moved to a new flat (department) 2 years ago. All the new bulbs I bought are still working fine, not a single replacement....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
True, not all electricity is obtained from burning coal. But the percentages are well known, and are used in the calculation of the relative amounts of mercury.
Also, we probably are entitled to a little more information about how the mercury is recovered safely and efficently in this nebulous 'recycling' scheme you mention. What is the process, and how much of the mercury is recovered. At what energy cost?
I normally assume that users of Slashdot are aware of Google, and are capable of their own research but since this seems to be a mystery, here it is:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mercury+recovery+from+CFL+lamps&btnG=Google+Search
Not that is particularly matters though - since mercury recovery from coal burning is 0.0% and is very unlikely to change.
Don't figet and fumble through your leaflet looking for a market-speak response, we want real figures, since you're the enthusiast for spouting answers to every reasonable doubt expressed.
They are hardly 'reasonable' doubts, but rather stupid neo-Luddite responses to a well understood technology. It is really absurd as to what passes for thought on slashdot. Put up an article on the nanotechnology of dark energy and you get rapt acceptance of extremely speculative ideas. Put up an article on some worthwhile, proven technology and you get uninformed objections.
Almost everyone I know refills a water bottle from the tap.
I personally will continue to reuse it until I lose it...and of course since I lost it, it doesn't make it into a recycle bin...but I have also used it maybe 100 times since I bought it...