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."
Until there's full spectrum fluorescent lights, you're not going to pry incandescent bulbs out of my hands!
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.
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?
This is typical of the 'magic bullet' theory of energy conservation. CFLs are just another small way that we can all use less energy. They are not a cure-all. You still need to get your boiler serviced, seal your windows in the winter, insulate your house, trade in your stupid-ass SUV for something more efficient, turn off lights you're not using, install a programmable thermostat, purchase energy-star rated appliances when it's time to replace them, carpool, set your computers to go to sleep when idle, etc etc etc.
There's no one-step easy solution. CFLs save energy, yes, but they're not perfect. They won't cure the world's ills.
I for one am glad to see legislation forcing energy conservation, because without it, there's a significant portion of the US population that will refuse to conserve energy because it requires effort on their part, and another (overlapping) portion that do the opposite of what people suggest that they do, because they're rebels and good 'merkins who'll do the opposite of what people say "because they can". People need to be protected from their own stupidity sometimes.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
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.
You still need to get your boiler serviced, seal your windows in the winter, insulate your house, trade in your stupid-ass SUV for something more efficient, turn off lights you're not using, install a programmable thermostat, purchase energy-star rated appliances when it's time to replace them, carpool, set your computers to go to sleep when idle, etc etc etc.
Just wondering, if where I live (in France) all the power I consume comes from a nuclear power plant, does it still matter if I do all of that?
You just got troll'd!
* CFLs do contain mercury, but it is only a problem if the bulbs are broken or disposed of improperly. The amount of mercury in an average CFL is about 1/100 the amount contained in one of those old mercury thermometers. Also, the largest man-made source of mercury pollution is coal-fired power plants, which CFL usage will reduce. In addition, newer CFLs are being released that contain much less mercury than current ones (source [pdf] [energystar.gov]).
.5 seconds. NONE of the CFL's on the market do this. only the $95.00 each 9 watt LED nichaLED PAR40 bulbs I have do this. multiply that by 8 bulbs and only the incredibly rich can afford them.
I guarentee that 90% of all CFL bulbs that have been disposed of over the past 5 years by consumers went into the trash bin and NOT a special bulb recycle bin. This is a trend that will not change as people are lazy.
* It is true that some CFLs don't live up to their rated life. All Energy Star compliant bulbs are required to include at least a two-year manufacturer warranty (source [custhelp.com]).
Most bulbs bought by americans are in the local stores and home improvement stores, they dont order high quality, they grab what is cheapest on the display. Most cheap crap CFL's die early and overall suck with long warm up times and nasty coloration.
* CFLs are available in all sorts of variants, including candle (regular and candelabra base) [1000bulbs.com], globe [1000bulbs.com], reflector [1000bulbs.com], three-way [1000bulbs.com], etc.
* CFLs are available in a wide range of color temperatures, from 2700K ("warm" incandescent) to 5100K ("daylight"). Many CFLs are indistinguishable from their incandescent equivalents (that is, until you touch them and don't get burned).
Really? then why do most CFL's get hot enough to be painful? EVERY SINGLE CFL in my home is at least 150 degrees at the ballast, bulb base.
* Dimmable CFLs [1000bulbs.com], which work on standard dimmer switches, exist. While they do not have exactly the same dimming behaviors as incandescents, I've found them to be more than adequate.
I call BS, I have tried to find dimmable CFL's that dont suck. and have yet to find any. even the specalty $49.99 each dimmables from the specalty online shops are no better than the crap GE bulb for $9.25 at Walmart. None ofthese work in home automation or normal dimmers. Give me make and model numbers of what you have that work perfect in dimmers and I'll try it to prove you right.
I would LOVE to have CFL's out there and reccomend them to clients. but I cant. I cant find ANY CFL lamps that are worth using in a upscale home or even a home where people like dimmers and instant on light. the biggest savings would be in outdoor lighting wher you have 500 watt bulbs as the norm and CFL still fails. I need motion lights to be on at 80% bright in -5C in less than
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
These debates frustrate me more than anything else. All of you are asking the wrong question. It shouldn't be:
"Does the government have the right to ban incandescents for the public good?"
It shouldn't even be:
"What things are inefficient enough to justify banning?"
It should be:
"Do all people appropriately incorporate the environmental externalities of their decisions?"
Any attempts to address the problem that avoid that question, are going to be haphazard -- and probably counterproductive -- approximations of what we do want. The reason is that when you say something is "wasteful" -- and thus hurting the environment -- you're making a judgment you literally cannot be qualified to make. Efficiency is "benefit provided per cost expended". I accept that you can tell me the cost expended, but the benefit provided exists purely in the mind of the user.
With that in mind, proposing a ban on incandescents is no different from:
-Banning all foods except enriched gruel.
-Banning PS3s since "You can just get a Wii and BluRay isn't that good anyway."
-Banning living more than 20 miles from work since, hey, not many people use public transportation.
Furthermore a ban on one thing you deem "wasteful" does not change the incentive structure for the infinite number of other changes people could be making in their lives. If all you do is save me money on lighting, I'll get extra free money and just waste fossil fuels in some other way. What energy-free thing do you think people are going to do with the extra money?
A far more robust and less annoying solution is to just assess the total environmental cost per unit of fuel consumed, add it in the form of a tax, and apply the proceeds toward sinks and abatement. Then, all decisions throughout the entire economy adjust, and you don't need to think about banning individual items. You don't need to debate which things people *really* get a benefit from. You don't need to carve out exceptions for French people who get the power from their incandescents from nuclear, or movie stars that "really" need their SUV or movie lighting. You don't need to go to environmental high priests to calculate the "total cost" of what you do, since the retail price would already do that. You don't even need to raise public awareness.
A ban on incandescents is just typical BS feel-good legislation.
***
Prediction: based on past threads, people will read this ALTERNATE SOLUTION as global warming denial, or the claim that government should do nothing.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
The issue of Hg content in CFLs is pretty well known. The real problem is that people are not educated about the recycling which can be done, and a sub-problem is cost. I take all of my electronics to the landfill where several types of hazardous waste products are recycled (supposedly, but that is out of my hands and another source of conspiracy theory altogether.) But I am only one of two people in my group of friends that does this.
So instead, most households will just throw the bulbs away like the do incandescents. It also comes up to cost. Now, the local landfill does not charge for household waste, but I am aware that some do. For ones that do charge, there should be some way to subsidize the cost so that people are encouraged to recycle. I have often proposed a small recycling fee added to hazardous waste products, like $1 each for consumer electronics, $.25 each for CFLs, etc., that is built into the price of the product.
My experience with CFLs versus old computers has been a harsh one. I no longer use CFLs in my computer lab because of the quickness of plastic yellowing which it appears to cause. Case in point, I had a Commodore 1080 monitor sitting on a desk in the room which had advanced yellowing on surfaces exposed to the fluorescent light, including lines where shadows fell. The front of my Commodore 128D suffered the same, as did a fairly young beige Antec PC case. No more. I use a halogen now and have not noticed any yellowing in this light.
I take issue with a legislative ban on incandescents period rather than a specific energy efficiency rating. General Electric announced a technology which increases the efficiency of incandescents. I wonder if this technology ever made it out of the lab and into the market.
I want to also quickly address two of your points. Firstly, lighting color (temperature) is a big issue for photography and videography, as well as make-up. Secondly, I have included here a link to a reliable source about fluorescent lighting and depression -- but in all seriousness, since different CFLs have different temperatures, it should not be a difficult leap to link those colors to psychological states.
On a personal note, I have found that cheaper fluorescents (CFL or otherwise) have a flicker which cause me to experience headaches, and that a brand available at The Home Depot called n:vision produces a series with a higher temperature and therefore whiter light which I enjoy.