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!
There CF bulbs that can be dimmed...
e.G.
http://www.vosslighting.com/storefrontB2BWEB/browse.do?action=refresh_browse&ctg_id=547
There's more important things here than money. Less energy used is still less energy used.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
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.
Guess I'll have to finally upgrade my EZ-Bake oven.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Yah, people in a free market VOTED for the ARM mortgages. That sure has worked out well, didn't it?
rewriting history since 2109
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.
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.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
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.
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.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
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.
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)
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
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".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.