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."

Comments

Misleading summary (shocking, I know)

[pyric]

From TFA:

Congress has not specifically outlawed incandescent bulbs, only inefficient ones.

Re:Misleading summary (shocking, I know)

[mea37]

Yeah, I submitted a more accurate summary of the Energy Independence and Security Act the other day, but forgot that if it isn't sensationalized it gets rejected around here.

Actually, the new law doesn't ban incandescants (which would be an incredibly bad law); it merely sets efficiency standards where before there were none (which is actually a pretty good law). And G.E. claims to be well on the way to making incandescants that will meet the new standards.

(By the way, the standards that phase in over the next few years are still well below the efficiency of a CFL. Even the backstop provisions for 2020 -- 45 lumens per watt -- are at the low end of what a CFL can do. So if G.E. can make incandescants compete with CFL, as they say they can, then there's no issue here.)

Also, there are a bunch of exemptions and exceptions. Those allegedly-decorative candelabra bulbs have a different standard (nothing above 60W). Many special-purpose lights are exempt, and in some cases that just means the light has to be marketed as "for such-and-such use only".

But by all means, let's all panic.

What?

[tripwirecc]

Until there's full spectrum fluorescent lights, you're not going to pry incandescent bulbs out of my hands!

Re:What?

[phozz bare]

That's fine, we'll just wait for your hands to melt.

Re:What?

[KillerBob]

Until there's full spectrum fluorescent lights, you're not going to pry incandescent bulbs out of my hands!

There... are. I have a 32W full spectrum CF light in a lamp by my computer that I affectionately call my "artificial sun". With an effective brightness equivalent to a 120W incandescent, it's quite good at keeping me awake long hours.

Re:What?

[MrSteve007]

I hear people frequently complain that CFL's don't cast off as 'natural' of light. That may have been true for the earlier models, but now nearly every single bulb casts a much nicer hue of light.

If you don't believe me, check out this study that Popular Mechanics did earlier this year on the color temperature and subjective quality of light bulbs.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/home_improvement/4215199.html

For their subjective part of the test, they put in 3 interior designers in color-neutral rooms and had them comment on what they thought about the light sources. Going into the test, the designers said they did not like the quality of color from CFL's, but by the end every single designer rated the CFL's higher than the incandescent bulb. To say the least, they were surprised and have changed their out-dated CFL hating ways.

Also, here's some tips I've learned from installing hundreds of CFL's:
-Don't buy the cheap ones, they frequently buzz. Go with name brands like Phillips or GE, I have yet to have a problem with them.
-Don't install bulbs on dimmer switches, unless they're specifically designed for dimmers - they'll last only a couple weeks.
-Some large CFL's can't be mounted upside down, beware.
-CFL's don't play well with motion sensor activation - they will burn out in months.
-IKEA recycles CFL's for free! (and batteries too)
-The vanity light shaped CFL's currently have a fairly long warm-up time, about 30 seconds. I hope they keep this, as I don't like blinding light first thing in the morning. The gradual warm-up is nice at 5am.

Re:CF save energy, but lack functionality...

[lukas84]

There CF bulbs that can be dimmed...

e.G.

http://www.vosslighting.com/storefrontB2BWEB/browse.do?action=refresh_browse&ctg_id=547

Re:wow

[BVis]

There's more important things here than money. Less energy used is still less energy used.

If you use the rigth bulb, they're not bad...

[effigiate]

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.

Re:If you use the rigth bulb, they're not bad...

[Waffle Iron]

Using the same principal, I light my kitchen with only the dull red glow of the electric range elements. It's kind of hard to see and I'm sucking down 10 kilowatts, but they sure do last a long time.

Compact fluorescent bulbs contain Mercury

[$exyNerdie]

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.

Re:Compact fluorescent bulbs contain Mercury

[Just Some Guy]

I agree with the comments on light color. We've used some of the CF's around our house and removed them for the most part as the light is cold and makes everyone look ill.

Oh, BS. I bought a sunlamp for my wife and was immediately struck by the cold, ugly light coming out of it. And then one day I was walking into the room where we'd put it and was noticing how awful it looked - until I realized that the light was turned off and it was sunlight streaming in. Yeah, that "ugly, artificial" light was identical to natural sunlight. It just looked odd because it was a fluorescent lamp and I expected it to look odd. That "warm, yellow" color? In blackbody terms, that's really a "cold, yellow color" when compared to sunlight. You think it looks warm because we associate "red" with "hot", but that's just not relevant here.

My buddy in the local Fire Dept. hazmat squad told me that my house should have been evacuated and a hazmat clean-up crew sent in after I dropped a CF bulb and broke it inside the house...

Pick smarter friends. The current crop seem to be idiots.

Well crap

[Jupiter Jones]

Guess I'll have to finally upgrade my EZ-Bake oven.

Lead in CFL Bulbs

[Velcroman98]

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.

Dim bulbs

[JonTurner]

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...)

Re:Dim bulbs

[tgd]

You bought lousy bulbs then. The tubes in my garage will light instantly well below freezing, and I have three R30 CFLs outside my house which will light instantly at zero (F).

With CFL, unlike incandescent, you get what you pay for. If you are going to put a bulb outside, get ones meant for being outside. If you need ones that dim, buy the ones that dim.

The biggest problem I've had in switching my whole house to CFL is the lack of non-cold-cathode candelabra lights. They are all cold cathode and tend to be 4w or so, whereas a lot of light fixtures that need them expect 30w bulbs (so more like 8-9w in CFL terms)... so you just don't get enough light unless you are using full-size bulbs.

Re:NO thanks.

[Alaria Phrozen]

Just because you get a bad ASUS/ABIT/nVidia/etc. motherboard doesn't mean that all motherboards of that brand are defective. It just means you got a bad motherboard. Sometimes things arrive DOA. Oh, hey, that might apply to light bulbs too!

Done right: Efficiency, not specific technology

[crow]

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.

Government Efficiency

[TheMeuge]

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?

Re:Government Efficiency

[BVis]

You've got a couple good ideas, but there's some issues there:

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.

The additional market for CFLs that this will generate will create consumer demand for CFLs with as identical a color spectrum as physically possible to an incandescent bulb. I've got several of these bulbs in my house and the light is plenty warm enough for me.

Passing a ban on inefficient technology is orders of magnitude easier than passing a 'new tax'. Try that and you'll get the GOP all up your ass about increasing the tax burden on the working class. Besides, CFLs have enough critical mass for the industry to innovate without requiring government subsidy, and the market for LED lighting is potentially so ginormous that industry will take the chance on the investment required.

Re:Government Efficiency

[BVis]

You're assuming that Joe Sixpack can understand the concept of "savings over time". All he sees is that he can buy a 4-pack of incandescents for the same price as one CFL. As far as he's concerned that makes the CFL more expensive RIGHT THEN, and that's all he cares about.

Of COURSE CFLs are more efficient over time (both in terms of energy consumption and replacement cost). This isn't controversial at all, it's a plain fact. (Granted, the cost of disposal eats into those savings, but you're still ahead of the game in the long run.) It's also irrelevant to most people when they make a purchase. Without the force of a ban, those people will still continue to buy the cheaper incandescents.

Stupid idea

[Nicolas MONNET]

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.

Re:CF save energy, but lack functionality...

[pacc]

Specifically, I'm talking about lights that dim... CF bulbs do not dim.
Wrong, they do dim. After a few months they don't give that much light any more but
the dimming is so slow so you don't notice (until you bump into walls).

Re:wow

[BVis]

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.

Re:wow

[Professor_UNIX]

There's more important things here than money.

Not in a capitalist society. See, capitalism really is the best system since supply and demand rules. We'll use a lot less gasoline when it costs $25/gallon because we simply won't be able to afford it anymore so we'll have to find alternatives or use public transit.

mod parent up.

[msauve]

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.

Re:mod parent up.

[JustOK]

Yah, people in a free market VOTED for the ARM mortgages. That sure has worked out well, didn't it?

Re:mod parent up.

[BVis]

That would be a valid argument if we had a free market economy. We don't. In a true free market, people would weigh the costs and benefits of each purchase both to themselves and to the society in general. Free markets require educated, thoughtful consumers. We don't have those. We have people who shop at Wal*Mart and think it's great that pickles only cost $3 instead of $3.50.

If you don't like the laws being passed, write your congressman. Until then, they're doing the job we elected them to do. If the majority of voters don't like what an elected official does, they get voted out of office. If the majority of voters find these kinds of laws inappropriate or objectionable, they'll remove them from office.

Re:mod parent up.

[kyofunikushimi]

Bear in mind that (despite all of its evils) Wal-Mart had a sizable role in pushing the CFLs out to a large chunk of the populace.

"Wal-Mart announced yesterday that the company has blown past an ambitious goal of selling 100 million compact fluorescent light bulbs by the end of 2007 -- three months early"

Google "Wal-Mart CFL"

Re:mod parent up.

[BeanThere]

From a libertarian standpoint this does appear to be a case of anti-freedom legislation - in theory, people should have a choice. On the other hand, since most power is coal-generated, there IS a cost (i.e. lower quality air, disruptions from climate change etc.) imposed on other innocent people when a person exercises their 'freedom' to choose inefficient technologies, for whatever reason - so it's not 100% a case of, well, everyone should have freedom to do what they want.

Re:mod parent up.

[Professor_UNIX]

Bear in mind that (despite all of its evils) Wal-Mart had a sizable role in pushing the CFLs out to a large chunk of the populace.

Wal-Mart is for cheap hillbillies. Cool people shop at Target.

Re:mod parent up.

[Osty]

That would be a valid argument if we had a free market economy. We don't. In a true free market, people would weigh the costs and benefits of each purchase both to themselves and to the society in general. Free markets require educated, thoughtful consumers. We don't have those. We have people who shop at Wal*Mart and think it's great that pickles only cost $3 instead of $3.50

It seems to me that the non-"educated, thoughtful consumers" in our free market have a different value system than you do. You look at that jar of Wal*Mart pickles and see lost jobs, so you buy the local jar instead for more money. The rest of the consumers act exactly as economics predicts -- they look at the price ($3 is less than $3.50), they look at the elasticity of the product (a pickle is a pickle, whether it's from China, Mexico, or California), and they act. In this case, economics dictates that people will tend to buy the $3 Wal*Mart pickle because it's the lowest price for a highly elastic good.

If you don't like the laws being passed, write your congressman. Until then, they're doing the job we elected them to do. If the majority of voters don't like what an elected official does, they get voted out of office. If the majority of voters find these kinds of laws inappropriate or objectionable, they'll remove them from office.

I would argue that this is where our lack of "educated, thougthful" citizens actually matters. The same people who are capable of operating optimally in a free market (because the free market was designed around true, rational human behavior) fall apart when dealing with politics (because politics revolves around idealized concepts of human nature that aren't in the least bit true). This is why you can have people voting in xenophobic candidates (stop illegal immigration, stop out-sourcing of jobs overseas, etc) who then turn right around and buy imported goods from the likes of Wal*Mart. Which is the correct behavior? Neither, because "correct" is not the right word. The "natural" behavior is the latter, because price will always be the biggest factor in any economics, to the point where most everything else just factors out. The former is a mix of gullibility and wishful thinking.

Re:mod parent up.

[gambolt]

two words:

Social Contract.

A citizen of a government is someone who has surrendered a portion of their natural (god given) rights to state in exchange for protection of their life and liberty. This is protection from forign nations and nationals, protection from nature, and protection from our fellow man. In other words, you don't get to be selfish and act in ways that might deprive others of their safety and liberty.

Federalism implies some powers are left to the states. One area that is not is interstate trade. This is not an implied power. It's right there in black and white. The federal government gets to regulate what goods for commercial resale are moved from one state to another. We are not living under the Articles of Confederation as some Libertarians seem to think. State and national governments are co-equal.

Re:mod parent up.

[rkanodia]

Fuck Countrywide, and fuck the losers who are upset that they can't continue to stay in that $600,000 house on a $900/mo payment.

No kidding. When I was a kid, I used to think that losing your house was the just about the worst possible thing that could happen to a person, and I probably would have been very supportive of a mortgage bailout. But now, I don't get what all the fuss is about. "Oh no, those PEOPLE are going to LOSE their HOUSES!" Who gives a shit? They couldn't afford those houses in the first place. That's what happens when you try to buy things you can't afford. "But it's their HOUSE!" Well, they can buy a cheaper house that they can afford, or, god forbid, RENT a house. Or even rent (the horror, the horror!) an apartment. I can't afford to buy a house either - but instead of throwing a hissyfit and demanding that the public foot the bill for an expensive house for me, I rent one that is within my means. What is so tragic about that?

To put it another way, if there were millions of people who had taken out ridiculous loans to buy McLarens and Lamborghinis, and then came crying to the public that their cars were being repossessed, and could they please have some of your tax money to pay off their car loans, the response would be a resounding, "Fuck off and die." Why is it different if they spent the money on a house? The proposals for a mortgage bailout have nothing to do with supporting the needy, but rather, they are about appeasing the greedy. In fact, I have a sort of Modest Proposal to prove it: every person who asks for a bailout should instead offered a free house of their own, as long as they must agree to live in it for at least five years. Sure, the houses are in the projects - but we know you aren't a bunch of materialistic, keeping-up-with-the-Jonses types anyway, so it shouldn't be a problem.

Re:mod parent up.

[node 3]

And why, exactly, should I believe in social contract theory? Because it's the system that works the best. If you want to maximize the well-being of all the people of a society, some level of social responsibility is required. Libertarian-style society *encourages* treating others as means to an end, and *that* invariably leads to the stronger subjugating the less-powered. When that's the case, the powerful see to it that the ranks of the powerless are as full as possible, and without any laws except those relating *only* to the initiation of direct physical force (the primary basis of Libertarianism), there's nothing to stop that from happening. It ends up a tug of war where the stronger side gets even stronger but fewer in numbers, while the weaker side gets more numerous yet ever weaker.

Second, what happens when the government is making it possible for the "sociopathic greedheads" to do this? What's ironic in your question is that in a "free market", there's absolutely *no* mechanism to protect against what you are talking about. At least a democratic society has a workable, if imperfect, mechanism. The problem, in America, is that too many people think this mechanism is immoral, even if it actually fixes things. The media is largely to blame for this, because *their* interests are threatened by such a mechanism, so they suppress anything that might support that mechanism, which has culminated after two decades (since Reagan, who really opened these floodgates), in a President who doesn't even *believe* in using that mechanism to help the people. Can it be any surprise, for example, that a government that doesn't believe the government can help people failed so miserably provide any help in New Orleans?

light spectrum is also important

[e**(i pi)-1]

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.

Re:the poor reptiles

[djmurdoch]

Just use 6 times as many CFLs, and put sunglasses on your dragon.

goodbye lava lite

[at10u8]

I suppose I'll have to make do with Jamie Zawinski's version as I retire the real ones.

Mod parent up

[snaildarter]

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.

Re:wow

[4D6963]

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?

Re:wow

[Colin Smith]

The purpose of government is to act for the good of society. LOL

The purpose of government is to maximise the personal wealth of those governing, at the expense of those governed.

An antidote for FUD

[csnydermvpsoft]

The amount of misinformation that has been spewed here astounds me. Get the facts:

• 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]).
• 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).
• CFLs are available in all sorts of variants, including candle (regular and candelabra base), globe, reflector, three-way, 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).
• Dimmable CFLs, 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.
• While most CFLs do not tolerate colder temperatures, there are many that do, all the way down below 0 degrees F
• While older CFLs didn't come on instantly, newer ones, with electric ballasts, do. They do not start at full brightness, but are plenty bright to see when entering a room, and reach full brightness quickly, often in under a minute.
• CFLs with electric ballasts don't "hum" like the old ones did.

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.

Re:An antidote for FUD

[Lumpy]

* 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]).

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 .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.

Re:CF save energy, but lack functionality...

[Lumpy]

Switch to LED lighting. they dim very well.

Problem is decent LED lights for home fixtures cost around $70.00 a bulb. the cheap crap off ebay fail with some dead led's in the array or other failures like color shifting within a few weeks.

I have 4 ceiling cans in the family room with about $380.00 in LED PAR30 bulbs that are bright enough to be 60 watt replacements. Wife loves the coloration of the warm white and I like how I can dim them down as much as regular bulbs.

We'll be getting our bulbs over the border

[Pontiac]

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

Re:wow

[wrf3]

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963)

Actually, Incandescents Aren't Banned

[jezor]

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}

They're not even light bulbs.

[edunbar93]

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.

Re:wow

[cecil_turtle]

Thanks for pointing that out, I'll have to do some research as to proper disposal.

BTW, it seems they contain mercury but I didn't see any information suggesting CFL's contain lead. You may also be interested in this:

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.[36] Of course, not all electricity is coal-fire generated, but with proper disposal, not all the mercury in spent CFLs will be released into the environment. Check out the graph as well.

Re:wow

[cliffski]

"As I understand it, LED bulbs are likely to be the best choice. I haven't seen them yet myself, but I hear they're OK and improving"

there is always a better technology just around the corner and those who oppose energy efficiency often suggest we wait for it. They never come, and when they look close, they always bump us to yet another further-off tech. CFLs work now, you can buy them now, everywhere.

Re:wow

[UbuntuDupe]

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.

text of the bill

[ffflala]

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

Re:wow

[Nos.]

Got a source for all your "facts"?

You talk about the toxic chemicals in CFLs. I assume you mean mercury vapour. You do know that they can be recycled right? And about the whold Vitamin D thing... incandescent lighting is not a good source of ultraviolet light which is what your body needs to product vitamin D. As far as the photography thing... I haven't noticed. I'm not a professional photographer, I'm happy with my point and shoot type camera. It works fine for me, and I don't notice a difference in colours between different lights. I haven't seen any studies on CFLs leading to depression, mind giving some reliable sources?

Re:wow

[ihaque]

FACT: Fluorescent bulbs lead to poorer health in humans because of a lack of vitamin D production. In addition to hurting humans, this also makes them wholly unacceptable for use in animal cages because many animals (particularly reptiles) really need this....

I really hope your incandescent bulbs aren't causing your body to produce a lot of vitamin D, because that "biochemical reaction" is triggered by UVB radiation. Incandescent lights won't produce much of that unless they're running really hot (like halogens) - and those need to have a UV blocker on them to keep them from giving you sunburns.

FACT: Fluorescent bulbs contain toxic chemicals that are far worse for the environment than all the belching coal smoke from power generation.

This is a common canard from the anti-CFL crowd that has repeatedly been shown to be false. Calculation demonstrates that even if no CFLs are recycled, you still drop less mercury into the environment, from the reduced amount of mercury put into the air by burning coal:

FACT: The people who are really pushing CFLs are not the environmentalists (except a few sheep). The people who are really pushing it are the power companies because after years of mismanaging the power grids and failing to upgrade them to accommodate growing energy needs, they have run themselves into a brick wall.

Oh really? That really needs some evidence before we can take it as a "FACT".

MOD PARENT DOWN

[glindsey]

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.

Re:wow

[LoadWB]

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.

Re:wow

[raju1kabir]

Capitalism at least takes advantage of human nature to make a more efficient (not perfect) system. Throw in just enough of a safety net to keep people from starving when their down and a few rules to keep people from exploiting each other and it's a rather good system.

It isn't really so much of a system as an eventuality. Unless you work really hard to avoid it, you'll end up with capitalism.

The question, therefore, is how to best create a system that deals with capitalism's considerable shortcomings (externalities, increasing wealth disparities, etc.) without excessively stifling its creative force.

Owning versus renting

[sjbe]

If I had a "chance" at owning a house, I'd be paying 1200$ a month for a mortgage and taxes. How is that better? I'd rather have the extra 700$ a month to myself so I can invest it.

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.