Slashdot Mirror
Light Bulb Ban Produces Hoarding In EU, FUD In U.S.
Lucas123 writes "The very thought of losing that pear-shaped giver of warm, yellow light drove Europeans to hoard Edison's invention [Note: Or possibly Joseph Swan's invention; HT to eldavojohn.] as the EU's Sept. 1 ban on incandescent light bulbs approached. China's ban on incandescent lamps starts Oct. 1. And, in the U.S., the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 effectively began banning the 100W bulb this year and will ban the most popular bulbs — the 75W, 60W and 40W screw-in incandescent bulbs --over the next two years. The end standard requires bulbs to use 65% less energy by 2020. But Republicans in Congress continue to fight the ban by hamstringing the energy efficiency standards through appropriations legislation, cutting off funds for the enforcement of the light bulb ban."
I don't think this can be blamed anyone else but Edison. Had he have the foresight to create energy saver light bulbs in the first place we would had been saved from lots of wasted energy and global pollution. Being also an inventor, I know to be both inventive and pollution-aware in my inventions.
It's not banned in EU per se, it's just banned as a light bulb. Meaning you can easily buy the very same product as a heat bulb instead. I do and always will use these bulbs.
fighting any and all innovation while hating on the gay and poor and giving to the rich...and now they're against energy efficiency? Amazing.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Should be a tax. Encourage people to make the right choices, but don't screw people who have special circumstances or are willing to compensate society for the cost of their preference.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
I was just curious. Did anyone else get the email harvesting "survey" from surveymonkeys.com ? Is this a slashdot joke?
Is there yet a way to tell at time of purchase whether a CFL bulb is going to warm up in an acceptable time?
I'm assured that bulbs exist that reach a decent brightness in under 10 seconds, but I have yet to manage to buy one.
Another non issue not to give a fuck about...
News at 11.
God damn ruskies and youre fucking light bulb
It's not like these light bulbs contain toxic substances that require careful disposal, or expensive clean-up - should they break, by the public at large. Something like that, I could see perhaps regulating the market a little bit, for public safety and overall health and well-being.
I can get behind LED bulbs (and the need to drive their cost down), but CFLs are a terrible idea for mass-adoption. People don't dispose of their batteries properly, why do we want to give them CFLs again?
The republicans are on the right side of this one. Oh well, this is how you divide the opposition and split up voting groups.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Go Republicans. Let consumers decide which bulbs they prefer. This is not a problem that needs to be solved by expensive regulation and legislation.
Always great to see Slashdot accepting article intros with obvious bias built in! Drop the political stuff, PLEASE?
How are they going to work without the heat of incandescent light bulbs?
You'll use those bulbs for the same reason why a four-year-old won't share their toys: because they've been told to.
Fuck you.
...to the E-Z Bake Oven.
Obama just instructs the DOJ to stop defending laws like DOMA or immigration, but go ahead and complain about lightbulbs.
Telling me that my current solution is just plain wrong for several reasons, and offering me a replacement that costs between 4 and 20 times what I have now, works a little differently, and will 'save me money' over the 'long haul'. Despite the math telling me it will save me money never.
CFL seems so good, except of course I can't even dispose of them - they do need to be recycled, assuming those cardboard boxes actually get send to a recycling center and that center actually recycles the phospors. And since most of my CFL usage is for brief periods, the payback is longer than the often quoted examples. Thanks, guys.
LED lights would save more electricity, last a LOT longer, but cost a LOT more. Thanks, guys.
Typical Democratic response, tell me how I should live, and declare my complaints as not merely petty and ignorant, but dangerous and evil.
As if there's a shred of difference between the two parties, nor any viable alternative on the horizon. We are staring at our doom.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Would you like to take a survey?
Do you like beans? Do you like George Wendt?
Would you eat beans with George Wendt?
The light bulb ban is for the old incandescent. the halogens are NOT banned and work just as good and look just as good. It's all nutjobs that got foaming at the mouth over misinformation. If they had actually taken the time to go and educate themselves instead of listening to the sensationalist talking heads trying to tun something moot into a news story to milk they would have known this.
Your only choise is not only LED or "curly que" CFL bulbs. And anyone that took 3 minutes to look it up would have known this.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Why not just change the law so a store can't sell incandescent bulbs cheaper than CFL or LED? You wouldn't need to ban them to have the save effect.
I've always hated the putrid yellow-orange color of incandescent filament bulbs.
I won't miss 'em at all.
effectively began banning the 100W bulb this year
Bullshit! It bans dim, piss-yellow vacuum or inert-fill bulbs -- 100W halogens remain legal, and deliver more, whiter light for the same energy consumption. Everybody sane and well-informed already switched, but sadly we have a large population of insane and/or ill-informed people who think inert gas bulbs are just bacony tits. Assuming they're mostly the latter, maybe if we educated them regarding the types of bulb available, they wouldn't be so annoyed with the ban -- which we wouldn't even need, since they'd switch anyway.
Why do we need money to enforce this? Which agency is going to be tasked with enforcement, the FBI, NSA, Fire Department, Swat...
Freaking madness. How about we let the market decide and with Europe and China both banning the product, I don't see incandescents winning out.
>> One drawback of CFL lamps is that they die more quickly in environments where they're frequently turned on and off . "You have to leave them on at least 15 minutes in order not to kill the light," Smallwood said.
I have a basement, attic and a garage, two of which are often below freezing for a good part of the year. When I'm in there, I'm usually in there for five minutes at a time; I love cheap incandescents for those areas. I also have a number of rooms with "historical" lighting. I'll be stocking up on bulbs for those lamps too. That said, cheaper LED bulbs (thinking of going totally solar/LED in garage/attic) and the newer halogen alternatives for historical fixtures have me intrigued. Just don't make me convert everything to CFL (they give my wife headaches) and we'll be OK.
The price of energy sets the drive to create better bulbs. I made the switch to CFL's years ago and now am using LED when possible. No ridiculous legislation needed. Everyone wants to save power and lower their bill, but you should still be free to pay more and run incandescent lights. I still run two in our stove vent hood. Keeping your food safe from an accidentally broken CFL is a good idea.
Although 90% of my lighbulbs in my house are CFC, I don't support the ban. I have a few lightbulbs that will never make sense to replace. They are in utility areas that get used at most 2-3 hours per month. Run the numbers and it just doesn't pay off. My bathroom is another area where my CFCs (General Electric usually) fail more often than incandescents. You cannot tell me it is more environmentally friendly to dispose of CFCs than incandescents.
As a consumer, I pay attention to this stuff and try to make smart decisions. Yet now I get penalized. I'm open to alternatives, but they have to be cost efficient.
but what about outdoor lights such as for home entrances? They put 60W incandescents out there for a simple reason, they work in winter and can resist a lot more moisture and bugs.
Republican supporters tell me this...
How is wasting electricity a conservative value? Opposing a light bulb ban just seems like opposition for opposition's sake, and some people seriously need to grow the fuck up.
You can buy the very same (non-green, energy inefficient) product under a different name: heat bulb instead of light bulb. How does this ban do anything for green fascist then, if I keep and will forever keep using inefficient incadescent light bulbs purchased straight from a EU heat bulb provider?
There are still many uses that can only provided by incandescent light, for example oh say having a full spectrum light instead of cheap fluorescent glow. Why don't we have the same energy options as major corporations? If only they subsidized CFLs and LEDs and put an energy tax on real light the middle class could still have the option of being able to see their house in warm full spectrum light if they were inclined. What about darkroom photography? CFLs in true red frequencies are hard to come by...What will happen to the easy bake oven?
This ban was signed into law by the Bush Administration.
And now, after putting it in place, the Republicans NOW object?
Test your net with Netalyzr
So how much does it cost to pay the restocking fee for one of each major brand in order to find a brand that works?
Yes, my 80-year-old mother needs to spend $45 for a bulb lasting 30 years.
Do the regulations also ban IR lamps sold as heat lamps?
So, how many Republicans does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
If you're that worried about mercury, NEVER EAT FISH.
How will people make little taste-less cake? Think of the children! :-)
Has anyone found an energy efficient bulb that matches a 60 or 100 watt incandescent in terms of lumens? So far all the ones I have tried that are advertised to be 60 watt equivalent are noticeably more dim.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
(Score:5, Animaniacs)
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
The ban is really about child obesity and preventing further use of the Easy Bake Oven.
what kind of light bulb I buy.
This is another example of how government intervention in a market screws it up.
CFLs
- produce crappy irritating light,
- take time to "warm up" to full brightness,
- don't last longer than incandescents (more below),
- are much more expensive,
- contain more, deadlier hazardous waste (mercury + electronics),
- are stolen more often (because they're more expensive).
I'm head of a condo owners' association and every CFL bulb we've bought has been replaced at least once due to failure. They are more fragile than incandescents and usually break at the juncture of the base and the tube. I had to stamp the association name on the bulbs because they were being stolen from the parking lot.
The CFL floodlights are the same. Apparently it's worthwhile for someone to climb a ladder to steal a CFL floodlight. Never had that problem before.
I am actually kind of surprised by the hypocrisy here.
When it comes to the internet, slashdotters almost unanimously agree that data is data and nobody should be able to tell us which data we can or cannot download, but when it comes to spending electricity, it is somehow different?
Just a clarify I am all for LED bulbs, but nobody should tell me what I can or cannot plug into my electrical outlet. If they want to charge me more money for using more electricity, then let them do that. Hell, if the government wants to encourage economical usage of electricity they can tax me on an increasing rate based on how much electricity I use, but they should have no say in what I do with that electricity. Once I pay for it, it's my energy to use.
It's a bit strange. Here in Holland we are not supposed to use light bulbs anymore but Schiphol Airport can increase the number of landings and take-offs by around 30000. You need to ban a LOT of light bulbs to compensate for that.
-- Cheers!
The *vast* majority of electricity consumed in the US is from the industrial and commercial sectors, who already almost exclusively use fluorescent lighting. Residential lighting electricity use is a drop in the overall bucket. This legislation is silly.
I'll be stocking up on GE Reveal incandescent bulbs - the best reading bulbs in existence. The new GE Edison halogen bulbs are also very good, but with the rather insane push for CFL's, they are hard to find. I'll be upgrading to LEDs once the price is right, and the dispersion problems are fixed. Screw CFLs, they are the discrete flip-chips of the lighting world (for the uninitiated, nearly obsolete upon introduction)
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
As evidenced by your petulant insistent on using the incandescent bulbs MERELY because you have been told not to.
With a few exceptions, I'm mostly using CFLs in my home, and have no problems with them. In the majority of the locations that still have incandescent bulbs, I haven't replaced them because those lights are on dimmers. Does anyone know of any non-incandescent bulbs that are energy efficient, long-lasting, inexpensive, and dimmable? I would love to get something better into the flood cans in my living room.
This is very hard on hippies. On one hand they want to save the planet by using the more efficient low-energy light bulbs, but on the other hand, they don't work in lava lamps!
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
So what, realistically are the replacements? CFL is out for me, since -40 weather is hard on them. Also I have 20 pivot irrigation systems that have telltale lights on them and CFLs would burn out in a week there (end tower light turns on and off with the motor at least once a minute, and some center tower lights have blinkers on them). My shop has a bunch of 200W rough service bulbs as well. CFL is not going to replace that. I understand there are cold-weather flourescent tubes I can install, but they are much more expensive than incandescents, and the fact they are only turned on for days out of the year total makes any efficiency benefits moot.
Someone mentioned before the ban isn't on incandescents per se, but on inefficient bulbs. So will there be higher-efficiency incandescents out there? Some sort of hybrid? Besides CFL and LED, what is really happening in the the incandescent area?
Telling me that I can't order that supersized soda anymore. Isn't that right mayor Bloomberg?
You're well within your rights to rant, but RANT AT THE RIGHT PEOPLE.
And don't be such a drama queen: we are not staring out our doom, it's just a damn light bulb.
That's a bloody bright room.
Admit it, you're growing weed.
The room is too bright for humans to live in comfortably, and the CEILING is NOT where you want to put your heating elements. Remember (or learn if you've never been taught this) HOT AIR RISES.
I don't see the objection to hoarding. I have CFL's in much of my home, but there are a few spots where I simply prefer the light and warmth of incandescents. For those spots, I bought a few cases of my preferred bulbs and stuck them in the attic. Barring power surges, I figure that I purchased a 30 year supply for about $100.
There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
CF and led bulbs are pushing incandescent bulbs out due to their efficiency. How about we just let the market take care of the problem instead of spending more money to force things?
The answer is "because they're freakishly expensive." $23 per lamp vs 44 cents for a 60 watt incandescent. In terms of running cost, that's 0.46c/hr of LED (at the 5000 rated hours**) vs .032c/hr for incandescent (GE lamps at Walmart, $21/48 lamps with a 1330hr rated life). Yes - that's more than a factor of 10.
"But what about energy?" I hear you cry. Well, at 11c/kwh, it costs 11c x 0.0125w per hour for the led, or 0.1375 c per hour. The incandescent 60W it replaces - 11c x .060w = 0.66 c/hour.
So I can get an LED for 0.60c/hr or an incandescent at 0.69c/hr. That seems like a pretty minor payback - a dollar of savings will take me burning the lamp for over 1000 hours - and I'm out $23 right now.
*If this bulb does not last 4 years, return UPC and register receipt along with your name and address to GE Consumer & Industrial, Product Service Dept., 1975 Noble Road, Cleveland, OH 44112. GE will replace your bulb. So for $3-4 in packing and shipping I can get a new lamp if this one dies in four years, but if it dies in year 5, I'm SOL on a a $23 item. If my 60W blows early, I'm out 44c.
**Rated life is 5000hrs per energy comparison data provided by Philips.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
'Bans' take all other factors out of the decision on what to use. The only real screw-in alternative to an incandescent bulb is the 'compact fluorescent' bulb although the LED screw-ins may eventually improve their performance and lower their cost enough to make them another alternative. However...the CFL bulbs have a lot of limitations. They have very low light output when they are powered up and need several minutes to warm up enough to reach full output. That makes them a very poor choice for lighting fixtures that are powered up for only a few minutes at infrequent intervals. The lifespan of a CFL bulb decreases dramatically to the same or less than an incandescent bulb when powered up for only short periods of time. Even when warm, the CFL maximum light output decreases by 20 to 30 percent over the life of the bulb. CFLs generally have a lower light output than a comparable incandescent bulb if you rely on the manufacturer 'equivalent to a xx-watt bulb labelling so your room, when lit with CFLs in the same lighting fixtures, is likely to be quite a bit dimmer. CFLs are supposed to have a life of 6,000 to 15,000 hours but my experience in real-world use has been less than 2,000 hours at best. Finally, CFLs are a very poor choice for any lighting that is not in a heated space as they will not even start in cold temperatures and, if they do start in cool temperatures, will put out a very low amount of light. In spite of these limitations, CFLs are an excellent choice in some locations such as a heated space that is powered up for long periods of time. However, the 'ban' will result in CFLs being used everywhere with predictable poor results. A 'ban' for something like a light bulb is like using a hammer to swat a fly...heavy-handed with poor results.
Unbelievably bad, that is. The light is poor and barren. I have yet to see a "100w equivalent" that was even close to being as bright as a 100w incandescent. Some of them have a power factor of 0.5, which means they're actually half as "energy efficient" as the label says. And "long-lasting"? Not in my experience. But hey, at least they're expensive.
The lighting industry has got to be gleefully rubbing its hands over these regulatory moves.
The building inspector made me replace 160 watts of very nice halogens in my new kitchen with 160 watts of fluorescents because the code says half of the lighting in a kitchen has to be "energy efficient". The overall lighting level went down considerably with this change, in part because the halogens give directed light and decent looking fluorescents don't, and also because halogen light is a lot nicer. Of course the change was reversed the same day the inspector signed off. The $120 fluorescent fixture I was forced to buy now illuminates an area of my home that I don't spend much time in--the laundry room.
There sure is a lot of misinformation out there. Much of it seems to have come from right wing talk. Incandescent light bulbs are not going to be banned.
Here is the straight dope from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/garden/fearing-the-phase-out-of-incandescent-bulbs.html?_r=2pagewanted=all&
Norm!
I really don't understand who these hoarders might be. Perhaps some people do have sockets which don't fit the somewhat larger CFLs or circuits which don't work with CFLs (despite there being dimmable CFLs), or other edge cases but these are a minority. Otherwise it seems like stupidity to want to stick with incandescents. They cost a lot more money to run and blow a lot faster. Seems like a completely false economy to me.
mebbe if he spent less time trying to scare grannies demonstrating the dangers of A.C. current by electrocuting dogs, cats and elephants.
That's not a lot of mercury vapour, then, is it.
You decide what the "right choice" is for other people? You're so smart you can decide this shit? Fuck off.
Mathmos LED Lava Lamp
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Not that I think an outright ban is the answer, but I can't replace my incandescents fast enough. The flourescent bulbs last ~10x longer for ~7x the price (and dropping), not to mention any power savings (the biggest advantage). And for long term homeowners, LED's last ~50x longer.
Have you ever taken a CFL apart? I have. There's an astonishing amount of electronics in that small base; it's required to transform line voltage into a potential sufficiently high to ionize the gas in the fluorescent tube. How much energy goes into the manufacture of these electronic components? How much of the electronics is either re-used or recovered as raw material when these bulbs are 'recycled', as opposed to the materials, (and the energy that went into their manufacture), being disposed of in landfills? I have been unable to find answers to these questions, and I think they're important. There's a lot more 'stuff', in a CFL, with a much wider range of chemical compositions, than in an incandescent bulb, so it's harder and more energy-intensive to fully recycle.
Then there are the special interests of the various stakeholders and their lobbyists - for a discussion of this, see http://ceolas.net/#li1ax . Does anyone really believe that 'saving energy' is a primary, or even an important, motivation for the manufacturers and patent holders of CFLs? Given that, what might they be hiding, and how much spin has been applied to the figures the provide vis-a-vis total energy savings?
If the powers that be were really serious about saving energy and the environment by encouraging CFL use, they would mandate two things: 1) A a high minimum standard of longevity for the electronics in the bases of CFLs, and 2) A means of replacing the tube only when it burns out, so the most complex and least homogeneous part of the bulb, (the base with its electronic circuitry), can be re-used numerous times. But guess what? That reduces the profit margins and raises both the cost and the price, making the whole proposition both less economically attractive and less politically palatable. If 'energy saving' was the true motive behind this legislation, these things would have been incorporated into CFL design by now.
The problems of the EMI and RFI that CFLs generate, and their crappy power factor, are points for further investigation for those interested. As are the problems with LED lights and their greater negative effects on melatonin production, with the accompanying decrease in health for those exposed to them.
This whole topic is a lot more complex and nuanced than most people realize, and I suggest that anyone reading this might want to do a little digging before giving in to a knee-jerk reaction of either "But, but... the environment!" or "But, but... I like the old ones!"
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Let consumers decide which bulbs they prefer.
No. People continue to buy wasteful incandescent bulbs. They consume too much energy, emit too much heat, and take up landfill space since they have to be replaced all the time. They are cheap to produce so people buy them even though in the long run they cost more. We regulate lots of things because people have proven they are unwilling or unable to act in their own or collective self interest. This is a perfect example. It's example like people not choosing fuel efficient cars. I would be fine with a tax on incandescent bulbs (if it was high enough) instead of a ban but since too many people in the US break out in hives at the hint of being taxed the only alternative left is to essentially ban them.
This is not a problem that needs to be solved by expensive regulation and legislation.
Apparently it is since people continue to use bulbs that are unnecessarily wasteful despite there being viable alternatives. However much this regulation might have cost (not much I think), the energy savings will easily recoup the cost in the long run.
Always great to see Slashdot accepting article intros with obvious bias built in! Drop the political stuff, PLEASE?
In spite of your user ID you must be new here...
I hate taxes used for social engineering. And, though you're an AC, I'm going to defend you here - you did NOT say tax energy, just that higher energy costs are an effective "tax" (not a real one - a market force) will place supply and demand pressure on the market.
This whole ban is actually just a disguised attack on the "dimmer switch" control knob industry. They're trying to get rid of the option of setting how bright you want the light to be. It's like everything else in Washington; they want your options to be light or dark, no middle-ground permitted.
Should be a tax. Encourage people to make the right choices, but don't screw people who have special circumstances or are willing to compensate society for the cost of their preference.
Should be but won't be. Republicans break out in hives if you try to raise taxes even for a good reason. Economically it makes sense but politically it is impossible.
For larger rooms you'd want 4kw heaters at least.
A google search didn't turn up anything useful, but it sounds like you've got a good handle on what's available.
Do they offer the 3-way LED bulbs yet? I'm not talking about dimmable ones (I know they exist), but rather the ones that work in sockets designed for these kinds of incandescent bulbs, providing three levels of light. My floor lamps are all of this kind, and I use each of the settings in different situations.
So Republicans want to abolish women's rights, gay rights, and minority rights... but fight for light bulb rights? Do light bulbs need the vote?
Until China cares about the environment, anything we do in the USA is a drop in the bucket. Besides... a light bulb ban??? Really that's all congress is up to these days?
A few months ago my gf went to buy some light bulbs. She called me to ask how many she should get; I said to buy all they had:P We now have about 150 clear 40W and 60W light bulbs laying around. They were much cheaper than replacing 500 euros worth of plastic crystalish armatures and will last for about 5 years. There's simply no proper alternative for crystalish armatures that are built for a light source that's shaped like filament. Yet.
Bullshit laws made up by idiots that probably burn an amount of energy driving to work daily equal to what I need to keep my lights shining for 10 years....
0x or or snor perron?!
Some people prefer incandescent bulbs, do you want to take away their freedom to choose?
People like all sorts of things that are a bad for them. I don't really give a crap if people prefer incandescent bulbs. I do think they are an inefficient relic that people need to stop buying. To do this the alternatives are either make it illegal or provide incentives to make a better choice. I'd prefer they just be taxed heavily but that's politically impossible. A ban isn't an ideal solution but it does have the desired effect. If you have a better solution that is politically possible I'm all ears however.
I find it very annoying that they are banning traditional bulbs. Especially in Canada, where I am. First off, there are many situations in which the CFL bulbs simply don't work. For example, outdoor lights. Sure, they work fine most of the year, but when winter hits they either take forever to turn on, and when they do are incredibly dim. LED bulbs are also not generally available yet in Canada, and if you do find them, they are ~$30 each. This leaves good old incandescent bulbs. And in the spring, fall, and winter months, the heat given off by the bulbs is hardly wasted. It helps heat the house; any heat given off by the light bulbs is less energy the furnace has to expend. Given these issues, I would much prefer the nice warm glow of an incandescent bulb to the harsh colour of the CFL (although they are improving). I do have some CFLs in my house for general purpose lighting, but there are many specialty bulbs that really just cant be replaced by CFL.
I'm sorry to hear about your "energy audits". My experience has generally been positive with CFLs, I do a few things which may contribute to my positive experience: 1/ if I'm replacing a 60 watt incandescent I use a 75 watt "equivalent", 75 watt means I use a 100 watt "equivalent", etc. 2/ If the light needs to be dimmable I don't use a CFL, a halogen (a type of incandescent) is efficient enough to meet the current standards and works well. 3/ I buy the lightbulbs from a lighting store.
BTW Quick on CFLs are pretty common, but it is something you need to look for as a feature on the packaging. I assume it ads 25 cents to the manufacturing costs.
I have some compact floresent bulbs and normal florescents in the basement, garage, kitchen and outside fixtures. Newer CFLs work good and seem to last longer than their older counterparts. Previously CFLs did not tolerate cold as mentioned on the label and would die every winter.
In some fixtures in the house I use real light bulbs since I don't know what else to do.
In my bedroom I tried CFLs but the shortwave turns into garbage when they are switched on.
I have traditionally not used LEDs since light looks crummy to me and there is concern over the blue spike in the output spectrum "blue light hazard" causing eye damage due to prolonged exposure.
CFLs contain mercury and they get thrown in the trash and cost more energy to produce than normal bulbs.
Newer LEDs are using phosphors like CFLs to convert spectrum into something much better. Only problem is they are still insanly expensive the last time I looked.
In bathroom and various chandeliers these options would spoil the effect and never see use enough hours in the day to add any noticable contribution to utility usage.
There are aniche uses of ineffecent light bulbs as intentional heaters to prevent snow and moisture buildup or to keep engine compartments from dropping below freezing.
I fully support increasing effeciency but forcing people to do something they don't want to do is rarely the right or productive way to get there as evidenced by the "hoarding" reaction.
The resistance is in my view a reflection of an immature market. Prices need to come down, technical issues need to be fixed and the bill of materials needs to reduced so that an honest assessment can be made given the ENTIRE lifecycle of the product rather than cherry picking energy cost to light these things.
Actually it's even better than that - almost all other types of modern heaters heat the air, which then heats everything else, especially the ceiling where the hottest air pools. As a result much of the heat gets sucked out of the house through the walls and ceiling and any air-gaps.
Infrared heaters instead heat the things in the room - people and surfaces - and if aimed well you can keep much of the heat off the walls and ceiling. One of the major benefits of this is that you can keep the air temperature significantly cooler, which reduces heat loss as well as allowing your body to regulate it's temperature more easily.
If you think about it IR heating is the traditional norm - an open fire sends virtually all hot air straight up - what warms you is the IR. Likewise standing near a sun-warmed rock or a Scandinavian style tile oven/masonry heater which can keep a whole house warm all day with just a few handfuls of sticks - the folks who've been living with serious cold for centuries long ago figured out that heating the air is silly.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The current batch of Republicans should propose to amend the ban so that we all have a choice. We should all be able to buy the new CFL power saving bulbs or just reduce the wattage of the incandescent bulbs we buy.
a) Some people would reduce energy consumption without giving up their incandescent bulbs.
b) Some people would adopt the new, more expensive technology out of principle, even though it doesn't actually perform as advertised.
c) Some people would cheat.
Everyone would be happy having a choice, especially the Republicans who seem to like dim bulbs as a rule.
This should not be the roll of government in my opinion. Let the free market decide. Yes, CFLs and LEDs have their place, but so do incandescent bulbs! If people want to buy incandescent bulbs, they should be allowed to get them at affordable prices. Let me tell you two stories about how incandescent bulbs are better than CFLs or LEDs.
My father and I used to work on cars together all year round including the winter. The trouble light we used had an incandescent 100W bulb. We used it for light AND heat! Anytime our hands got cold after gripping a freezing wrench, we would just place them around the light bulb and warm them up quickly. Now, the government is stepping in and telling me that they're smarter than me and that I need to use a CFL or LED bulb instead, which doesn't output nearly as much heat. So instead of having 1 power cord to deal under a freezing car, I am going to have to have 2; one for a light, and another for a heat source. LAME.
I know someone who replaced bulbs on a airport runways. The heat from incandescent bulbs is advantageous in street lights and runways in cold climate because the heat melts the snow which would obscure the light emitted from the bulb!
I am tired of the government pretending to be smarter than the invisible hand of the free market. Rand Paul talked about this. Search for: light bulbs rand paul congress.
I don't always agree with the Republicans, but on this issue they couldn't be more right. When I flip my light switch I want the light to instantly come on at full intensity. Anything else is the equivalent of going back to using tinderboxes and candles. I will give up my incandescent lights when they shut down all the brightly-lit, energy-wasting casinos that keep popping up all over the place.
Proverbs 21:19
Think of all the children who can't find a replacement bulb!
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
It'd cost me $2100 to replace every bulb in my home (not including the 8 flood lamps).
Bull**** it would cost that much.
CFLs can be had for under $5. So you are saying you have 420 light bulbs in your house? A house that you claim costs $90/month to heat even in summer? Even if we go with LED lights which can be had for under $25 you are saying you have 84 lights in the house. If you are going to make stuff up, at least do it in a way where we can't do the math.
And we are done with spreading mercury everywhere.
Which produce light as a byproduct. By odd coincidence, they would fit in standard light sockets.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Now, Theodore Maxtible was a true genius. In 1866, he invented a time machine that let him sell items as antiques a century in the future. This was when Thomas Edison was in his teens. Maxtible became quite wealthy from this. This was all video documented. Unfortunately, Theodore Maxtible mysteriously disappeared, depriving man of a true intellect.
Taxing the price of cigarettes through the roof is one of the factors driving smoking down in America.
Tax incandescent bulbs which are used primarily for lighting at an ever-increasing rate until, several years after the new tax starts, the cost per bulb is about that of an acceptable "greener" alternative. Then phase the tax out as the prices of the greener alternatives drop over time.*
Allow rebates or exemptions for uses where the alternatives are clearly unsuitable, such as using light bulbs to heat with or for certain specialty bulbs.
*or don't, but it won't matter because revenue from this tax will be very low within a few years as almost everyone will prefer a longer-lasting "green" bulb over a shorter-lasting incandescent that costs the same or more.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
A ban means:
a) we can't rely on the consumer making the 'right' choice without our help.
b) people will still use incandescents unless we stop them
c) non-incandescent bulbs will not 'win' unless we make them the only choice
from this, we must conclude that either
1) people are idiots
or
2) incandescent bulbs are not as 'bad' as claimed
or
3) democrats are just smarter than everyone else
Other items perhaps worthy of a ban by the democrats:
horse-drawn carriages, hot air balloons, sailing ships, hand saws, outhouses, and biplanes as these all have 'better' alternatives.
Use of these bulbs should NOT be banned... under certain conditions.
My gosh, doesn't anyone realize that they're 100% efficient.... in colder climates, winter, or whenever you require putting your furnace to work.
An incandescent bulb emits light and a lot of waste heat. That "waste heat" helps warm your home and the furnace gets to work a little less. So you spend a little more on electricity but save on gas.
If you're not using your furnace or ESPECIALLY if you're currently using your A/C, these bulbs should never be used! I would go with LED bulbs in that case.
makes sense, eh?
Over the last couple of years I've been quietly replacing my incandescent light bulbs with CFLs.
The only issue I've had is the ones with the warmest colour take the longest to come up to full brightness. The one in my kitchen is full brightness pretty well immediately, but has a blue cast. The ones in my bedroom and living room take about 30 seconds from turning on to full brightness, but have a much nicer colour.
...laura
Everyone shouts about how changing to these compact fluorescent light bulbs will save so much energy, to the point where we are now having bans on the incandescent bulbs. While I don't mind the CFLs personally, there are plenty of people who do. And the energy savings isn't all that huge. Sure, collectively when everyone switches to them, there might be some noticeable savings, but light bulbs are hardly one of the largest users of electricity in a standard home. Switching from incandescent to CFL bulbs may save the typical home a few bucks a month.
I work in customer service for a large Energy company in the US, and I see the billing and energy usage statistics for hundreds of people on a weekly basis. Do you know that there are people in 1-bedroom apartments who pay $300-$500 a month for electricity during some winter months? This is because they live in run down housing with poor insulation and horribly inefficient heating systems. Education is also a large part in this. I have had people tell me that they heat their home by their oven, because they think its more efficient than the standard heating system. In the summertime things aren't much better, and almost everyone's bills skyrocket into the hundreds of dollars as they start running the air conditioning. And most people don't seem to even realize that air conditioning uses electricity. I am told by people on a daily basis "why should my july and august bills be so much higher than the bills from a few months ago? I leave the thermostat on the same temperature, so I'm not using any more air conditioning".
Some education and weatherization, and stricter housing standards could go a lot farther towards reducing energy usage than changing out a few light bulbs.
"(look, its only $1 upfront instead of $50, that means you could buy $49 of malt liquor today, that kind of brilliant budgeting helps poor people stay poor)."
It's more like:
Look i have 10$ left after I paid rent and food, until my next next pay, and I have a burned light.
Wow, I could save in the long run with the 49$ bulb! if only i had the money.
Maybe I could use my credit card to buy it, and loose all the saving + some $$ to the bank at 19% interest!
THAT is the kind of brilliant economic system helps poor people stay poor and the bankers stay rich.
There is no ban on incandescents.
I repeat, there is no ban on incandescents.
There are increased efficiency requirements. Some forms of incandescents can meet the new efficiency standards some can not.
The readers should be aware that your comment pertains to a third category of lighting (neither the soon to be unavailable incandescent or the newly favoured CFL).
It's saying exactly what I said it says.
"I'm going to use incandescents and get around the restriction because government told me I shouldn't.
Waaaaah.
What a bunch of self-centred babies.
(PS I notice you fail to give a reason other than that)
There being no reason to conserve electricity - unless and until it were to become expensive - this whole thing is just like Iraq and Afghanistan: do something, preferably expensive and painful, to prove that one is on the same side as the idea's supporters; making matters worse for them and all others is not considered relevant. This is what happens with fragmented media politics and society with all "adults" voting. Voting becomes essentially self-affirmation. Bad policy multiplies, stupidity reigns.
I favor having all the Greenies screw some of those incandescent bulbs in, where the son don't shine.
Great! Now we'll see mercury related illnesses and birth defects skyrocket. Way to go!
And don't tell me to get an LED light. They're too damn expensive and not nearly bright enough.
So, every thrash of government consumes power. How much entropy change does the thrashing cost? Is it more or less than the desired reduction from requiring more efficient light bulbs?
Okay, GOP; we'll agree to un-ban incandescents - if you agree to get out and *stay* out of womens' uteruses (as most would definitely never invite you in).
I have several little bit older lamps in my home that simply wont use the energy saver bulbs, Ive tried different brands and they all just flicker really fast while standard light bulbs work perfectly fine. Hell ALL of the ceiling fans in my home do the exact same thing. Why the hell should I have to put new ceiling fans and lamps in my home just so I can use the newer bulbs in them? Then you have the fact I have dimmer switches on a few fixtures and the energy saver bulbs dont work on it either, its either one or off, that is if it doesnt burn the bulb out.
Sure I could try LED bulbs but for gods sake I can barely scrape by on my normal bills, I cant afford the ungodly amount those things cost.
Granted most of my light fixtures use the new energy saver bulbs and I dont mind it really since they work well but Im not spending nor do I have the hundreds of dollars laying around to replace my ceiling fans, lamps and fixtures that dont agree with energy saver bulbs.
So I guess Im out to scrounge every single standard bulb I can find.
And mr government, if youre so concerned about saving energy perhaps you should actually do something besides just banning something that is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Youve waste millions time more energy on that stupid gulf war in the past week than all the light bulbs in the world use in a month alone. Not to mention all the other countless things you waste but then punish us for over something so incredibly stupid.
I already have a number of friends who's rooftop solar produces more electricity than they consume; and at that point, the (environmentally friendly) glass and metal incandescent is better for the environment than the mercury-laden florescent.
I'm pretty sure that happens because all of the other mods marked it "insightful" and you're the lone wolf marking it "troll". The result is a lower score, but it shows the majority vote. I haven't heavily tested this, so I could be wrong.
I really don't see this having any significant effect over how much pollution is released. Maybe we should take care of cargo ships that produce as much pollution as 50 million cars before worrying about something insignificant like light bulbs.
So what now?
I know many here will disagree, using tired and faulty arguments like, "The Sun emits more EM" or "Only oxidizing EM is dangerous" etc.
But for those of you who are interested in keeping your mind clear from the fuzzing effect of having your head within spitting range of an EM transmitter, CFL bulbs are to be avoided. Filled with voltage stepping electronics, they broadcast a great deal more than just photons.
Incandescent bulbs are much less irritating to the old noggin.
Twenty minutes of information for your edification and enjoyment on the subject of low-power EM fields and the effect on the blood brain barrier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_WJ_aJPWIA&feature=share
Someone really needs to make a 3-in-1 screw-in adapter for light bulbs. Then maybe, if I put 3 15W CFLs it will be better than a 60-75W normal bulb.
The Incandescent Inquisition!
"...cutting off funds for the enforcement of the light bulb ban."
Trying to legislate them away is the kind of stupidity I expect from our government.
Its as dumb as what I did outside. I have a couple of exterior house lights with security settings that turn them on at dusk and then I can set how long they stay on for at 100% or dim to 50%, as well as how long they stay on if the motion detector triggers. Well these lamps 100% don't work with anything other than 100W incandescent bulbs. The dim-able CFL's and LED's both choke or blow up in and hour or two. So, my solution is I swapped in a 23W CFL, and wired it to bypass the controller. The plan was to remember to turn it on/off, but I'm not that kind of person, so it just runs 100% of the time.
I'm sure the energy savings in this case doesn't exist. Couple hours a night at 100W vs 24 hours a day at 23W... Good job there...
Coming up to brightness is greatly dependent on ambient temperature. My bedroom is about 15 Celsius in winter and it takes virtually forever for the CFL's to light up. In summer (ambient 25 Celsius) it's a couple of seconds.
We're not replacing light bulbs with LEDs, we're replacing them with energy efficient light bulbs, not bleeding edge almost works technology (ie. LEDs).
The math on energy efficient light bulbs have shown them 10$ cheaper per year. But I suppose proper energy taxes might also have an influence of peoples desire to save power.
All electric sources of heat (baseboard, portable heater, light bulbs, etc.) are 100% efficient. Every watt of energy that goes into them is transformed to heat without any losses at all.
Energy saving is not the only reason to choose a bulb.
:-)
...This is gesture politics."
.
Moreover, consumers pay for electricity of which there is no future shortage given all the low emission and renewable development - and if there was a shortage of say coal, the price rise would reduce use anyway!
Why did the major Manufacturers lobby for and welcome the ban?
Would you welcome being told what you can make?
If so, why?
Yes, profits from a ban on cheap generic patent expired bulbs
http://ceolas.net/#li12ax referenced
But OK - just taking the savings side of things:
Whatever about Johnny switching a bulb in his bedroom, if he wants energy saving rather than other qualities:
Society laws should of course be about Society savings
"The total reduction in energy use would be 0.54 x 0.8 x 0.76% = 0.33%,
This figure is almost certainly an overestimate.
Which begs the question: is it really worth it?
Politicians are forcing a change to a particular technology which is fine for some applications but not universally liked, and which has disadvantages.
The problem is that legislators are unable to tackle the big issues of energy use effectively, so go for the soft target of a high profile domestic use of energy...
Cambridge University Network, and similarly US Dept of Energy and other data, as referenced
That's not all.
Light bulbs don't burn coal or release CO2 gas
Power plants might, and might not.
If there's a problem - Deal with the problem
Far more relevant to deal with electricity generation, grid upgrades, smart grids, alternative consumption savings, as referenced via the previous links.
Not only is the overall saving negligible.
In effect it can be non-existent!
Since "coal" use is the main environmental issue, and main usage of targeted incandescent bulbs is at night:
Coal plant night surplus output operation (hard to turn coal plants up and down also with newer "cycling" plants) means effectively the same coal is often burned - whatever the light bulb or even if it's on or off !
Nightime electricity also from other sources, is cheap for a reason.
(DEFRA, APTECH data)
How Light Bulb and similar Regulations are Wrongly Justifed
http://freedomlightbulb.org/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html
14 points, referenced
Yes it is a ban on regular incandescents and the touted halogen type replacements
45 lumen per watt end regulation applying after 2014, EISA phase 2 (EU by 2016, similar law)
http://ceolas.net/#li01inx
US EU etc regulations linked and explained
In Argentina the ban went into effect this year, and it was (surprisingly) fairly painless because of Halogen lamps which naturally replaced traditional lightbulbs. They are dimmable, and the color temperature is almost the same, and only slightly more expensive.
I tested a 23W CFL (100W equivalent) and found that indeed the 23W CFL was nearly equivalent to a 100W incandescent in the amount of current it pulled from the wall.
The 100W bulb drew 100VA, unsurprisingly. The 23W CFL drew 21W, but 76VA. So, it puts 75% of the load of a 100W light bulb on the utility.
Until there's a replacement bulb that actually works with standard household dimmers, I'll be hoarding incandescents. I'm all for energy efficiency, but no one has come up with a viable alternative that works with legacy dimmer hardware.
I haven t seen any 8w led bulbs that come close to providing the same amount of light that a 100w incandescent bulb produces. I would love to replace my 100w incandescents with equivalent LEDs but no store iPod can find sells such a thing.
Halogen incandescent light bulbs are the correct replacement if you can't stand LED or CFL. They are not banned, they are about 25% more efficient than old-fashioned light bulbs. They are 100% compatible with all existing equipment, and they are cheap to boot.
I recommend the OSRAM brand. Some of them are rated for 10^6 (one million) on/off cycles and 2500h.
Germans have launched light bulbs as heaters
Initially stopped but now set to be allowed as special bulbs
http://freedomlightbulb.org/2012/02/we-want-to-shed-more-heat-than-light.html
(with updates)
"The very thought of losing that pear-shaped giver of warm, yellow light drove Europeans to hoard Edison's invention"
That article produces no evidence that Europeans are hoarding light-bulbs.
AccountKiller
I must have 15 different brands of LED's and CFL's.
2900k is oranger/pinker than incandescent bulbs.
3000k is the same (one brand G7 of LED bulb passes the double blind test with my friends- it was discontinued and some bulbs "buzz" but I've had good luck with them- but ANY 3000k CFL or LED bulb works.).
The 5000k light is too harsh/blue.
But they have a new 3500k at home depot (in red packaging) which produces a very nice quality of light.
Also, a 60 watt bulb is 850 lumens. Anything less isn't really 60 watts.
However... I've found I greatly prefer 900 lumens. I think it is an age thing as younger gamers in our group say it is too bright while those of us near 50 years old find 850 lumens to feel a little dim and 900 lumens to be just right.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
That's the ban that's needed to restore the constitution and get these fascists out now.
Verify the candidate for potus is actually a natural born citizen.
Make the president sign a statement that if he breaks his oath he will spend his life in prison.
Make the candidate sign a statement saying GMO's will be outlawed.
Meanwhile Destroy Michelle's School Lunch side show with the GMO rat study.
Or face the DHS's 1.45 billion bullets. You are either going to restore the constitution or it's genocide time.
That EU site was made in cooperation with the light bulb manufacturers who lobbied for and welcomed the ban in the first place.
...This is gesture politics."
.
http://ceolas.net/#euban
Re the supposed savings quoted:
Whatever about Johnny switching a bulb in his bedroom, he saves less than supposed for many reasons as linked below,
besides he might welcome other qualities in his lighting - eg broad spectrum brightness!
Society laws should of course be about Society savings, and even then only in comparison with other policies.
"The total reduction in energy use would be 0.54 x 0.8 x 0.76% = 0.33%,
This figure is almost certainly an overestimate.
Which begs the question: is it really worth it?
Politicians are forcing a change to a particular technology which is fine for some applications but not universally liked, and which has disadvantages.
The problem is that legislators are unable to tackle the big issues of energy use effectively, so go for the soft target of a high profile domestic use of energy...
Cambridge University Network using official European Commission (VITO) data, and similarly US Dept of Energy and other sources, as referenced.
That's not all.
Light bulbs don't burn coal or release CO2 gas
Power plants might, and might not.
If there's a problem - Deal with the problem
Far more relevant to deal with electricity generation, grid upgrades, smart grids, alternative consumption savings, as referenced
Not only is the overall saving negligible.
In effect it can be non-existent, and CO2 emissions may increase from a ban
Since "coal" use is the main environmental issue, and main usage of targeted incandescent bulbs is at night:
Coal plant night surplus output operation (hard to turn coal plants up and down also with newer "cycling" plants) means effectively the same coal is often burned - whatever the light bulb or even if it's on or off
Nightime electricity also from other sources, is cheap for a reason.
(DEFRA, APTECH data)
As it happens, CO2 and other gas emissions may increase by switching away from incandescent light bulbs, especially in cooler climates, as shown by linked Canadian, Finnish and Icelandic research, independently of one another (also see http://ceolas.net/#li11x).
That is, when the electric light bulb heat from a low carbon emission (like nuclear, hydro, solar, wind) power plant source is replaced by CO2 emitting heat fuel (like coal, gas, oil).
How Light Bulb and similar Regulations are Wrongly Justifed
http://freedomlightbulb.org/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html
14 points, referenced
Very insightful comments Bedroll!
A tax would be more logical (bulbs just banned to save energy)
but as you say there are industrial-political reasons aganst it.
However, industry did lobby for and welcome the ban on incandescents.
Why welcome a ban on what you can or can't make you say ?
Odd certainly at first sight...but profits of course, from getting rid of the cheap patent expired generic light bulbs (like banning "penicilin"),
a profitability Osram GE and Philips executives have all stated openly.
Congress lighting consultant Howard Brandston was there in the hearings and wrote a book about it, I Light Bulb
- NEMA (manufacturer association) represented the companies in the Legislation talks:
" When I asked NEMA for help in fighting the incandescent light ban, I was politely told that they could not be involved in that" etc
http://ceolas.net/#li12ax
http://freedomlightbulb.org/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#industrypol
Costco currently has those pack of 3 LED bulb for $14 (use 4W max)
Everyone that use a regular incandescent bulb, or CFL bulb turns off their outdoor light to save on electricity - Put one of those
Costco LED bulb in (at 4W) - and you can left the light on for 15 hours for the same energy usage as a 60W bulb in an hour. I
just can't see why anyone still use CFL or the old fashion light bulb.
Is when people don't read the article, just go off in a rant.
You don't have to buy CFL or LED, the Halogen bulb does the job, won't be eliminated, give off the desired luminescence and is more reasonably priced.
Yea, they're not a $1.00 Chinese imported piece of trash that burns out in 45 days. One of the big box stores is selling a Phillips 4 pack of 72 watt halogen for under $8.00.
Three is no issue here, just a bunch of idiots thinking they have to rush out to buy the last of the shitty light bulbs.
Unfortunately, only incandescent bulbs can be made to match the spectrum of sunlight (with appropriate filtering). This is very important for a number of reasons, including cases where color reproduction is critical (museums, etc.), and where there is not much natural sunlight (Seattle and Vancouver half of the year, or an office with insufficient or poorly directed windows). There have been a number of studies correlating productivity with daylight, and also studies linking low amount of daylight with depression.
Color reproduction suffers tremendously with the horribly spiky spectrum of fluorescent and high intensity discharge bulbs, and while white LEDs are better, their spectrum still has significant humps that make them unsuitable if you want to emulate daylight properly. This is not a simple matter of white balance and using so-called "full-spectrum" bulbs. The color of objects one observes is the product of three functions: the light source spectrum, the surface reflectance spectrum, and the spectral sensitivities of the human eye. Although the eye reduces color to only three dimensions due to having cones with sensitivities centered at the usual RGB wavelengths, it does not mean that a white-balanced light source with three narrow spikes centered at the same wavelengths is anywhere near sufficient. The reason for this is that the three types of retinal cone cells each have fairly broad sensitivity ranges. This means that, while staring at such a light source would be the same as staring at a light source with a smooth spectrum, things change when you introduce the reflectance of the surface of objects. Then, the lights that when observed directly looked the same will produce very different renditions of the colored object--because its reflectance has a spectral distribution that doesn't correlate with that of the R, G, and B peaks of retinal color sensitivity. Your "full-spectrum" fluorescent bulb will have its spectral spikes in general not match the spectral spikes of the reflectance of different surfaces that you're observing with this light. The result is colors that look completely different for bulbs matched to the same white balance point and color temperature.
Daylight from the sun has a smooth spectrum, because it is a blackbody emitter. Incandescent bulbs are also blackbody emitters. Unfortunately, due to the lack of a material that can withstand sufficient temperature, we have to run them at lower than optimal temperature and more of their energy tends towards longer wavelengths: heat (giving inefficiency) and red and yellow colors (giving a tint and low color temperature). Halogen incandescents are a little bit better as they run hotter, but its the reflectors on their MR16 incarnations (common in track lighting) that make an important difference, as they're designed to preferentially leak some of the reds and yellows and improve the color temperature.
High end MR16 incandescents such as Solux (which I use in my desk lamps) match daylight almost perfectly. This is made possible by the smooth spectrum of a blackbody emitter--the heated filament. Trying to filter narrow, high power spikes in fluorescent/HID/LED light spectra requires precise narrow-band filters, which is extremely impractical.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
To prevent clogs I now flush after each turd, and once more for the paper. Surely this does not save water!
Even with that, I still get clogs sometimes. These new toilets can't handle a 16" (40 cm) turd.
Oh, they are also unsanitary. The high-powered water jets fling tiny droplets of "water" (poo) into the air. We breathe that air. Many people even keep toothbrushes and cups in the bathroom.
I read that dissertation you linked to - the least you could do is read the fairly short (and factual) news report I linked to. Anyway... the most direct contradiction to the so called "ban" is summed up in this bit, in my opinion: "Mr. Pitsor, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association representative, was asked what the incandescent substitute for a typical 100-watt bulb would be, and he described a 72-watt equivalent. The reason most Americans won’t find it on the shelves this week, he said, is that most shipments went to California, which has bulb legislation that kicked in a year earlier than the federal regulations. Starting next month, he said, the new bulbs will be on shelves everywhere.". So: NO BAN - you will still be able to by ILBs, and they will be more energy efficient to boot!
Selfish people.
Here there is no ban in "old style" bulbs, but almost every place is converted or converting to LEDs. The upfront cost is a great deal more, but still about 0% of most people's yearly income. The electricity savings are huge. Most people will do it, just because it's the right thing to do.
(In Japan)
On the American side,
regular incandescent light bulbs are legal for Texas manufacture and sales since June 2011, signed into law by Gov Rick Perry.
Texas also has several Congressmen active federally against it, with bills and amendments
http://freedomlightbulb.org/2011/06/texas-to-allow-incandescent-light-bulbs.html
http://freedomlightbulb.org/2012/06/texas-hold-em-and-congressmen-fight-for.html
All the bills in US States, links and updates
http://ceolas.net/#bills
Outside the USA, Canada delayed ban for at least 2 years, BC suspended their ongoing ban: See the above sites for more
Mexico due to implement restricitions but their grid needs upgrading (common CFLs affect grids due to their so-called power factor)
Those interested in the incandescent ban topic can if they want follow
the Incandescent Light Bulb Activist Alliance on Facebook,
started a few days ago, with American and European politicians, lighting designers, writers and others
http://www.facebook.com/groups/bulballiance
Those interested in the incandescent ban topic can if they want follow
the Incandescent Light Bulb Activist Alliance on Facebook,
started a few days ago, with American and European politicians, lighting designers, writers and others
http://www.facebook.com/groups/bulballiance
What? Are the light bulb police going to kick my door down to see if my light bulbs meet government standards?
The "energy saver" bulbs that are supposed to be "environmentally friendly" are a con - not only are they more expensive, they are freaking dangerous - dangerous EMF output, and they have dangerous levels of mercury - if you break one in your house, just go check out the EPA guidelines for cleaning that up. You practically need a HAZMAT team. Why would they force this on us? I mean it's absurd. The biggest contributor to greenhouse gasses in the world is the US pentagon / military which is almost purely engaged in foreign invasions / non defensive operations but oh no, we can't have them reduce their energy usage, it's we the evil civilians who must put up with these con artist "energy saver" globes. What a crock. Just another example of governments globally working in lock step to introduce uniform freedom (aka personal choice) policy dealt out by technocratic social engineers who "know what's best for us cause we're just too damn stupid".
Next stop, forced euthanasia and eugenics science gets a revival.
Has no one heard of "planned obsolescence?" Original incandescent lightbulbs were manufactured to last a LONG time. There is a firehouse somewhere in America that contains the worlds oldest running lightbulb, working continuously for like 100 years or something. Lightbulbs can be made to last an incredible amount of time and use remarkably little energy - it's just down to engineering. These things they can palming off onto us like some dodgey eugenics door to door salesman are nothing but a con - the real purpose of them is delivery of massive quantities of mercury and other poisons (like EMF) into the atmosphere and into our homes and bodies, and brains. That, and the wicked kick of power that a few weasel control freaks get in forcing billions of people to dow what they think is best whether it is or not. This kind of use of the law is what leads to anarchy. When the law is abused and obfuscated by nonsense, real laws (hmm, lets see, like prosecuting US war criminals Bush and Obama, or like prosecuting mass financial terrorists on Wall Street with their galactic scale fraud) go by the way side. We're being conned. Again. But that's not to say it doesn't have a purpose, it's just a very evil, sick, demented purpose.
A alternative to switching from incandescents is to use rough service incandescent bulbs. Newcandescent bulbs satisfy all federal requirements, http://newcandescent.com/
Hello aabrown
:
Thanks for your reply
I did read your linked source - and you obviously did not read mine!
First of all not allowing bulbs that don't meet a standard is obviously the same as banning them,
in anyone's language.
Secondly, those 72 Watt bulbs will be banned too after 2014, as Mr Pitsor knows full well
(NEMA were in the Congress Hearings and pushed for a ban on the patent expired generic bulbs for profit reasons, as covered in the 2011 book "I Light Bulb" by Leahy/Brandston, the latter was in the Hearings too)
Those replacements are typically 20-25 lumen per Watt
The end regulation is 45 lumen per Watt.
That spells ban.
Overall, energy savings are not the only reason to choose a light bulb,
as they have different advantages, and the overall savings are negligible as described here:
http://freedomlightbulb.org/p/deception-behind-banning-light-bulbs.html
14 points, extensively referenced
- including a lot more on why it is a"ban" and how consumers are affected.
//Came here to say the same. I could mod you up, but instead I'll just say, every time I bitch about warm up time in one of these threads, someone replies that I should buy a bulb made this century or by a good manufacturer. Yet no one ever has an example of which ones are the "good manufacturers."\\
My bulbs are almost all CFL from Costco in our home. In over heads, like a lighted ceiling fan, I do not notice any warm up time at all. In lamps, I do notice a brief, perhaps 3 seconds of 'ramp up' to full brightness but nothing like what you stated. Try the store brand, Kirkland I believe, from Costco.
I think it was a plot to redirect tungsten into fake gold bars!
And that's unfortunately why they stay poor.
While the rich pay $25 for a LED lamp, and enjoy 10years of blissfully low electrical bills, the poor are struggling to pay their electrical bills because they paid 44c for their lamp, not to mention sweating like chubby butchers over spring/summer ...
Your comments on power are partially correct, If you refer to something solar or hydro-electric where the production is more determined by the environment than anything else. Unfortunately, there is still a lot of power generated by burning petrol chemicals, and cutting back on power consumption will result in less of these being used in the first place, before they are converted into something like electrical power. So conservation is a very good thing, actually.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
All electric heaters are 100% efficient.
...And I counter with 'all engines are just heaters in disguise'! HA!
Say, could someone speed up time? The universe is a bit chilly today...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
You're doing it wrong. You don't want another line in the deficit column, it should pay for itself thru fines.
I use light bulbs in the winter, because winter is dark, which summer is not.
I also use electric ovens in the winter, because winter is cold, and electric heating is the only allowed in my apartment.
So: I only use light bulbs when I also need electric heat, which the light bulbs also make.
The result: I only need one oven, because I can heat the other rooms with light bulbs, and get a lot of nice light in the process.
In other words: Light bulbs are ovens that I must use, but which give off nice light as a byproduct.
And light bulbs have a nice reddish spectrum, which do not mess up peoples sleep cycle so much.
Ha, ha, I was not aware of this intromission into the market. Why not settle it with PRICE, as it should, eh? And I was proposing a patent to a lawyer to handle such things as harnessing the emotional impact of light tone qualities in bulbs... Though under these news the problem is now: will I look better or worse to Africans? I sometimes look very sick under some lights despite being well, but others I look just godly and fragant, even after not sleeping. To me it does not matter, but people would behave differently depending on how lights make me look! I again suspect that under the guise of **environmentalism** (Junglism), the real motivation is unacknowledged needs by non Occidentals to make things even with Occident, and Occident is buying the bullet very nicely because such idea is like, ay, no! it is not nice.... Danilo J Bonsignore
My outdoor lights ONLY seem to come on at night when I use the old style bulbs. Does anyone know why that is?
I just replaced a whole bunch of bathroom candle flicker lights, that in total burnt up 200 watts of energy in 2 bathrooms, with LED bright white lights that use 18 W total. Cost me $34 at Costco.
Now my bathroom lights are actually brighter, the light is warmer in visual spectra, and they should last for a decade.
And I saved money on my electric bill with ZERO emission/recycle problems that CFL bulbs have.
Bizarre that when I look into a turned off bulb I see a bunch of chips, but hey, it works better than the old incandescent lightbulbs and way better than the compact flourescents, and I can just toss them in the trash when they, in the distant future, burn out.
So .. what is your problem? Just get over it ...
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
So I've tried an awful lot of energy efficient bulbs, and I use them for most of my lighting, but I still find incandescent bulbs indispensable. The biggest problem with these other bulb technologies is that they lack the de facto standardization that has come from many decades of incandescent use. Sure, if I just want a 60-watt equivalent bulb for a regular light fixture, that's great. But what if I need something a bit brighter, for my enclosed ceiling fan? I can never seem to find a bulb that is bright enough and fits in the enclosure. Same goes for my dining room chandelier, and the lighting for the vanity in my bathroom. And even if I do manage to find a bulb that is bright enough and fits properly, there's a good chance it'll be an odd colour, and now when I stand in front of my bathroom mirror I will look an odd shade of green. Sure, maybe there are bulbs out there that are perfect replacements for the incadescents I know and love, but they probably don't have them at the store I was at, or it's hard to figure out which one to buy. So I might go through two or three different $5 bulbs before I'm happy with the result. Or I could buy a $0.50 soft white incandescent and get exactly what I want every time. At $0.12/kWh, it's not worth the effort to replace a 25-watt bulb that I use for 30 minutes a day (even considering that I'll have to replace it every year or so).
An inspector going through my house, telling me what to use where, this is just as sensable as a self appointed expert thats never worked within the craft telling me "from now on you will only use this 24" Rigid pipe wrench when rebuilding Pratt Whitney turbines, for your safety and assured compliance were confiscating all of your tools and equipment.
The right tool for the job, CFL's, most LED and conventional inductive ballast fluorescent just have a pig shit spectrum for visibility and detail, not to mention the 60Hz strobe effect and inefficiency of inductive fixtures.
I am a machinist maintaining a tolerance of 0.00005, if I'm at the surface grinder, mills, lathe or Brown & Sharpe my work light will preferably be Halogen,
incandescent or one particular full spectrum 4 watt LED spot / flood, it's just like working under a 50 watt halogen, under $12.00 at wally world.
The Incandescent lamp it self has very useful properties, Armstrong incubators use a 150 watt bulb as an heating element, their the finest and most accurate current limiting for cheap, used in transmitters, real pro line commercial audio tweeter and horn protection, valuable on the test bench as diagnostic current limiting, a latched power amp powered through a 100 watt lamp will have enough current flow to diagnose, when it draws exceeds the watt rating the bulb just gets bright, not enough current to let the smoke out.
You can compare SPDs of different light sources at The National Gallery's SPD Curves web site. Select “Update selection” to choose the data series to chart. You can overlay multiple SPD curves for comparison. The curves are all normalized sensibly.
Among the data sets provided there, these light sources seemed closest to daylight in their classes, in decreasing order of daylight approximation:
1. Nature Studio2 Filtered Daylight [daylight baseline]
2. Solux 12V Dichroic [tungsten halogen MR16]
3. LSI LumeLEX 2040-C4M2-6S [LED + cold phosphor fixture]
4. Leelium Daylight MSR [tungsten halogen balloon]
5. Philips 50Par30L-WFL40 [tungsten halogen PAR30]
6. CRS SP12 WW [LED MR16]
7. GE F40W/AD [fluorescent T12]
8. Pro-Lite Daylight SRI-30W [compact fluorescent PAR30]
Compare them and decide which light source you’d choose to supply to a human vision system that evolved under daylight.
The Solux’s (tungsten halogen) SPD looks great, but Solux lamps are only available as 120 VAC PAR and 12 VAC MR16.
The LSI’s (LED + cold phosphor) SPD looks good, but it’s a big museum light fixture.
The Leelium’s (tungsten halogen) SPD looks OK, but it’s a big ballooon used for movie lighting.
The Philips’s (tungsten halogen) SPD looks OK. Tungsten halogen lamps are widely available in a bunch of common form factors.
The CRS’s (LED) SPD looks mediocre. It’s a 12 VAC MR16.
The GE’s (fluorescent) SPD looks bad.
The Pro-Lite’s (compact fluorescent) SPD looks terrible.
In short: tungsten halogen > tungsten > LED > fluorescent.
I wouldn’t be in a hurry to eradicate tungsten lamps. LED and fluorescent lamps have a ways to go before approaching the SPD of tungsten lamps.
My wife and I are engineers. We have young children, and we're concerned about the effect the light sources we use in the house have on their developing visual systems. The human visual system evolved under daylight. It seems reasonable to prefer light sources that more closely approximate the SPD of daylight. So we use tungsten halogen lamps throughout the house. We won’t change over to LED or compact fluorescent lamps until they offer SPDs substantially closer to daylight’s.