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.
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...
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.
Except it draws attention from issues worth talking about.
You can't talk about corporate domination of congress when you're talking other bullshit like this.
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?
The EU has not ban a specific technology, it banned incandescent bulbs based on their energy efficiency over the last 3 years.
There is a website about the change:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/lumen/faq/index_en.htm
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
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.
>> 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.
could you prove your statement? I don't know all countries, but at least in Germany you can't buy heat bulbs.
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.
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?
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.
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.
It's amazing how the very people on this thread complaining about having past costs externalized on them, are happily willing to do the same to people a decade from now, some of them are us.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
(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.
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.
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.
A ban is a government's way of saying that not enough people supported alternatives until it was too late.
A ban is a government's way of saying that the people of their country won't do what they're told, so they must be forced to do so.
BTW, I've looked through the Constitution several times and I don't see anywhere that says 'the government may tell people what kind of light bulbs they're allowed to use'.
Uh, you do know that a Republican president signed this into law, right?
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?
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.
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.
LED lights would save more electricity, last a LOT longer, but cost a LOT more. Thanks, guys.
Lets buy five 2000 hour 100 watt old fashioned filament bulbs for $5
100 watts / 1000 watts per KW * 0.10 dollars per KWh * 10000 hours total use = energy cost of $100 of highly govt subsidized electricity (real cost probably higher)
Lets buy the equivalent number of lumens in a 10000 hour LED I donno 8 watts or something for $50.
8 watts / 1000 * 0.10 * 10000 = $8 of highly subsidized electricity
Old fashioned total cost is $105. LED total cost is $58.
There's some cultural socioeconomic stuff going on too. I wouldn't be caught dead buying filament bulbs because that's poor people budgeting prioritizing up front cost over long term cost (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).
I've been fooling around with LED lightbulbs (sometimes, unfortunately at great cost) for a decade or so. AKA I've been one of those early adopters with arrows in my back so you cheap bastards can now pay $25 for something better than I paid $150 for as a novelty a decade ago. They really do last 10000 hours when not abused. Two great ways to destroy a LED bulb : 1) Never dust it, because it never burns out so you ignore it, until its encrusted in a thick layer of dust, over heats, and poof. 2) Enclosed fixture, even worse outdoors in hot summer right after sunset, that's just not gonna live long Avoid those two scenarios and they really are a better, cheaper solution.
Its also weird as a lifestyle thing where in a big enough house you burn out a couple old fashioned bulbs every month, so you keep a stockpile and buy them at the food store as a regular purchase. Once you go LED they burn out so rarely that 1) Its a noteworthy event 2) you don't keep a stock on hand of replacements (well, you could I guess, but just like I don't keep spare major appliances around ... Although a RAID array of clothes washers would help when a backlog accumulates)
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
You must really hate the sun.
The government isn't telling you what bulb you can or can not use; they are only regulating what is manufactured at mass scale. If you truly want to use a 200W incandescent bulb, you're welcome to figure out a means of producing them for yourself.
When large corporations are mass-producing products for consumer purchase that are bad for those consumers--individually or as a group--regulations are key to help ensure that those corporations are not sucking long-term value out of society in exchange for short-term profits. Asbestos may have been a great insulator, for example, but it did not belong in all the locations where its producers pushed its installation in order to ensure it was a profitable product.
I know it's expensive and un-economical to make your own light bulbs. But the only way that light bulb producers can keep selling you incandescent bulbs for 50c a pop is by selling millions of them in order to achieve economies of scale. And if you think about it, spreading the hidden costs among millions of people to keep things affordable for you is a sort of socialism. If you really want to be your own man and stand up to the government, you blow your own glass, spin your own filament, and--what the heck!--power them with your own generator. If you can pull your own oil or coal from your own property, then you'll really be un-touchable!
The CB App. What's your 20?
Where did either the original AC poster or cayenne8 say that the reason they're using incandescent bulbs is because they've been told not to?
So you'd have no problem if you hired me to remodel your house and I used lead paint and asbestos insulation?
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&
I live in Europe and fail to see this "hoarding" thing. I call bullshit. Most people I know have been using CFLs for years. Who wants to use lamps that:
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.
If he was growing weed he would probably have a nice LED strip.
They just tell you it's in everyone's best interest.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
Mathmos LED Lava Lamp
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Lets buy five 2000 hour 100 watt old fashioned filament bulbs for $5
100 watts / 1000 watts per KW * 0.10 dollars per KWh * 10000 hours total use = energy cost of $100 of highly govt subsidized electricity (real cost probably higher)
Lets buy the equivalent number of lumens in a 10000 hour LED I donno 8 watts or something for $50.
8 watts / 1000 * 0.10 * 10000 = $8 of highly subsidized electricity
Old fashioned total cost is $105. LED total cost is $58.
The problem selling us on LEDs is you're fighting the propaganda spread by the CFL folks. In practice for me, CFLs haven't lasted any longer than old tyme bulbs. And because they take so long to warm up and give off so little light, I end up turning on more lights and leaving them on all the time rather than just when I'm in the room. So I'm skeptical on the energy savings.
So to spend more up front on a bulb that lasts longer and uses less energy, I'm in. But to spend more on a bulb that doesn't last any longer and doesn't give off sufficient light, not so much.
LOL I had 16 seventy five watt bulbs in my basement workroom / lab and it still had some troublesome shadows and dark corners. Yes that would be a little bright for a bathroom or closet. Used to get hot in the summer but the LEDs keep it cool now. Yes, that was a rather expensive LED conversion project. CFLs make too much electrical noise for some of my electronics projects so it had to be RF-quiet LEDs. 40 feet along one side and 30 along the other that's just not as much light intensity as you'd think.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
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.
I live in Europe and fail to see this "hoarding" thing. I call bullshit.
Me too.
No sig today...
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...
Do you know what an externality is?
It's when something you choose to do has consequences for people other than yourself.
You aren't allowed to dump your trash out the car window while you are driving down the highway, no matter how convenient that may seem.
That's why 'they' can tell you what the fuck you can do.
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.
You do know I can't find a nickel's difference between the two parties, don't you?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
The deal is: due to time value of money, all non-incandescent light sources cost actually more. They don't save shit, because money equals energy, so if you have to spend the money, the energy is expended somewhere else. Those bulbs cost more because it takes more energy to make them -- so much more, that it happens to almost exactly offset any energy savings due to using CCFLs or LED lights. When you factor in time value of money, those more expensive bulbs do actually cost more. So the entire argument about cost or energy savings is complete and utter made up bullshit. Yes, I like the CCFLs and LEDs better, because I don't like the heat being emanated in my home. That energy was spent at the factory, though.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
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.
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?
See reply above....
Seriously....where have incandescent light bulbs been shown to be directly harmful to humans?
Do incandescent light bulbs contain some chemicals toxic to humans like mercury...etc?
Oh wait...that was the replacement bulbs for incadescents...the CFLs.....hmm...but those aren't banned....yet they contain potentially toxic chemicals for humans and pets...right?
Which bulbs are more like asbestos and lead paint...CFLs or Classic Incandescents?
"One of these things is not like the others....."
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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?!
If you do the calculation, the real thing including time value of money, you'd see that incandescents do in fact cost the least, at the moment, to own and operate, at least in the U.S. and when you're talking about residences. This may not hold in commercial settings. The "energy spent like hell" was at the factory -- that's why they cost more. They take more energy to make. That's all there's to it. Just because the energy is spent elsewhere doesn't mean it's not spent and you of course pay for it. Up front, no less. Energy = money, in the grand scheme of things. As for incandescents needing to be replaced "all the time": for me they last about half as long as CCFLs do. Due to their low purchase cost, it's not an issue. And I do keep good track of it.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
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.
And this has exactly WHAT to do with light bulbs...?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
+1
I swapped all my bulbs to CFL years ago. when my energy company send me 3 free CFLs a while back they just went in a draw, because i had no incandescents left to replace. CFLs cost about £1 these days, and save ~£5-20 per year per bulb (depending on usage).
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.
I'd have thought that $50 LED light would scale its energy output to maintain a temperature at the safe operating limit (or even at a limit determined by specified lifetime). I consider them shit if they don't do that. That's actually the only way to make people dust them: light output goes down, you have to get to it, clean it up, and put it back. No "burning out". When it burns out it means that it allowed an unsafe failure. It's a step away from causing a fire.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
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.
Yep, and when you add up the time value of money, the end total cost is the same. Never mind that 10c/kWh is pretty darn cheap. In Europe it won't be anywhere near that low AFAIK.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
> The government isn't telling you what bulb you can or can not use; they are only regulating what is manufactured at
> mass scale. If you truly want to use a 200W incandescent bulb, you're welcome to figure out a means of producing
> them for yourself
'The government isn't telling you what what you can can or can not say; they are only regulating what can be published. If you truly want to have free speech, you're welcome to figure out a means of sharing you message yourself'
Wiesel words about government bans doesn't justify them or change their function.
Especially when you completely make up stuff like "mass scale". The bill only says "manufactured" and does not give any exceptions to that, volume or otherwise. Of course, it doesn't seem to limit import or sale, so theoretically you can legally acquire them, but that's probably something I'm missing (like the penalty for manufacture) because the bill is written as an amendment. And I dunno, maybe somewhere in there is something about volume limits... I doubt it though.
So no, it's a ban and, frankly, quite disturbing that you seek to defend it in such a way. I can't wait to hear how 'it's not censorship, it's just a tax on controversial speech to cover the hidden costs of your speech for society '.
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.
Most commercial settings are lit with efficient fluorescent tube lighting, and has been for a long time.
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.
The problem selling us on LEDs is you're fighting the propaganda spread by the CFL folks
Uh?
Like I wrote, I'm an early adopter with arrows in my back. The arrows in my back are all CFLs. One side of my basement has modern CFLs (laundry room) one side has modern LEDs (work room). In a "survival of the fittest" competition, side by side, its just no contest. I would not predict a bright future for CFLs (sorry for the bad pun).
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
The trouble with your analogy is that I'm a grown adult...
You sure could have fooled us with that attitude.
You may be an adult by years, but your maturity leaves something to be desired.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
This part.
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.
The trouble with your analogy is that I'm a grown adult...and the government is NOT my fucking parent....
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Generating electricity from coal puts mercury into the atmosphere. Saving electricity reduces mercury.
If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
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.
I would've thought that blanket dismissal of any attempt of the people to act for the common good, is more of a libertarian value, rather than a conservative one.
Distain for government really only makes sense in the American context; most other Western countries accept the need for government (collective) action, regardless of whether people are on the Left or Right. The difference tends to be what they think should be regulated.
How is government action to stop some harmful or self-destructive behaviour (e.g. drink driving, smoking), different from other harmful behaviour (wasting lots of electricity)? I personally see no harm in nudging people towards doing the right thing and acting sensibly.
I think loaded language (snarl phrases), like 'nanny state' should be avoided. It's an appeal to emotion.
That doesn't say what you seem to think it says. It's a statement about the proper limits of governmental v. parental authority, not a statement about why he's refusing to submit to that authority.
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.
From a "value engineering" "profit engineering" standpoint the best solution for the vendor is a coffee pot style fusible link so the instant the bulb hits 160 degrees F it permanently shuts off. Still cooler than an old fashioned filament bulb so don't freak about fire danger. Nothing burns down and profit goes up.
If I were designing a LED drive ckt, sure, constant current source feeds a constant temp source, or more likely the other way around. But that's not "value engineered for profit in China" thinking.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
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.
That was exactly what I was thinking. Littering in public directly affects others. What bulb you choose to put in your house doesn't.
"This is not something I voted for in any of my politicians..."
This November you get the chance to vote out all incumbents, including the ones who voted for this boondoggle. Anybody who votes for an incumbent this time around, is voting for all the bad laws, including this one on incandescent light bulbs, that have ever been passed. Some of these politicians have been in office for decades. It is time to throw them out. Then, maybe the new crop will repeal some of these freedom restricting laws.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
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
If you do the calculation, the real thing including time value of money, you'd see that incandescents do in fact cost the least, at the moment, to own and operate, at least in the U.S.
I actually did the calculations, and CFLs are cheaper. Just an example: A € 7 CFL costs less than ten € 1 incandescents, and saves 80% of the electricity.
The "energy spent like hell" was at the factory -- that's why they cost more. They take more energy to make. That's all there's to it. Just because the energy is spent elsewhere doesn't mean it's not spent and you of course pay for it. Up front, no less. Energy = money, in the grand scheme of things.
They cost more because they are more complex than incandescent, which are extremely simple. They have electronics, and they have glass tubes covered with fluorescent material. They don't spend all that energy producing a lamp! That's crazy.
As for incandescents needing to be replaced "all the time": for me they last about half as long as CCFLs do. Due to their low purchase cost, it's not an issue. And I do keep good track of it.
This is clearly bullshit, unless you buy shit cheap CFLs.
So, your whole post is just a pile of unsubstantiated bullshit. But you'll probably get modded up by the "Ugh, it saves energy, so it must be commie pot-smoking muslim abortionist lesbian america-hating faggy latte-drinking liberal smelly hippie, kill the muthafucka!" crowd.
So hey! how 'bout them corporate masters?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It was crap to begin with, anyway.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
"Asbestos may have been a great insulator, for example, but it did not belong in all the locations where its producers pushed its installation in order to ensure it was a profitable product."
The difference is that inexpensive, environmentally benign substances were found that could be substituted for asbestos, but this is not true in the case of lightbulbs, at least not in the case of CFL's. Is polluting the ground-water with mercury a better solution than polluting the air from coal burning power plants? LEDs can be a good solution, if the price can be brought down by an order of magnitude.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
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.
Shit, I should have been explicit. CFLs do cost less. It's LEDs that don't.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
If you don't think they're different, then why did you single out the Democrats for your scorn?
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.
You do know that it was an unrelated attachment the Democrats added to the bill Bush really wanted, which was to reduce the amount of gasoline used in the USA, right?
But you probably know that Bush would never do anything to decrease oil consumption because that would go against the oil companies and his foreign policy, right?
Nah, Metal Halide (and High Pressure Sodium for flowering phase) is the only way to go. 75-100W ballast is more than adequate for a small setup so there won't be a telltale spike on your power bill. Fluorescent (and probably LED) just aren't bright enough for their size.
By the way, it's amusing how a lot of these contain mercury, which the EU has zero trouble with, but they did have trouble with PbSn solder, which is a lot better than SnCu for electronics (for one, melts at about thirty degrees lower temperature)
People, businesses and municipalities have been installing LED lighting like there's no tomorrow, here. I guess they made the math and know what they're doing. It makes all sense where the lights have to be on for a long time. And it saves shitloads of money in lamp replacement logistics. Incandescent traffic lights break all the time. It must be a logistic nightmare to take care of it all.
LEDs are expensive as hell, but it all depends on how many hours per day the lamps will be on. At least where I live, electricity is very expensive. And the LED prices have been going down big time in the last months.
I'd be more interested in a Redundant Array of Inexpensive Dishwashers.
I have a RAID 1 array of those AKA children. Really Fing expensive, trust me there. I can get the kids to do dishes by hand, but laundry by hand? No.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
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).
LOL I had 16 seventy five watt bulbs in my basement workroom / lab and it still had some troublesome shadows and dark corners.
I know what you mean. Those grues and creepers will spawn if you give them even the slightest chance.
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.
No, it does not say "because government told me I shouldn't." It says, in effect, "the government told me I shouldn't, but I'm going to anyway." It doesn't actually say why.
(PS I notice you fail to give a reason other than that)
So? I'm not going to engage in the mind-reading you seem to be so fond of. I don't know why he doesn't want to give up incandescents. Other people have given various reasons here, some of which I find to be convincing, some of which I don't. Some people have disagreed with those reasons, or explained why the factual premises underlying those reasons are wrong. Some people have posted explanations in response to those explanations. Some people - me included - have sought information about non-incandescent light bulbs in order to see if they might work adequately in their situation. You know, having an actual discussion.
For some reason, I think that's better than calling people twats, attributing immature motives to people who don't act the way you want them to, and calling them babies.
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.
Things might change in a year, that's true, but for where I am it makes no sense, at least not if I buy from brick-and-mortar stores.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
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.
BTW, I've looked through the Constitution several times and I don't see anywhere that says 'the government may tell people what kind of light bulbs they're allowed to use'.
If you are using that as your gauge you will find that government is doing a lot of things it shouldn't probably a good number that you think are good things.
Time to offend someone
So?
Generating electricity from nuclear, wind farms, solar, waves, hydro...etc...etc. also don't put out mercury into the atmosphere. Wny not concentrate on the energy source rather than what I plug into a wall to light my house?
Where is that money better spent?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
Lets buy five 2000 hour 100 watt old fashioned filament bulbs for $5
Lets buy the equivalent number of lumens in a 10000 hour LED I donno 8 watts or something for $50.
Um, no, you can't do the math like that. You started with 5, 100-watt incandescent bulbs which can be used to light 5 different areas with 100-watts of light. You then compared it to a single LED bulb capable of producing the equivalent amount of light as a single incandescent but can on used to light a single area. To be fair you must account for the remaining 4 lights which is another $200 making the comparison $105 vs $298 (including $8 per additional LED for energy). This is why lower income folks get screwed, $50/light is hugely expensive compared to $0.50/light. This doesn't even factor in the fact that bulbs break before their usable life is over for other reasons.
Care to extrapolate on this a bit? You're vague....
What makes me immature in my statement? That I don't see the need for the federal govt to make my choices in how I light my house (or do most other things in my life) for me?
That I used a 'naughty' word in my diatribe?
That I don't just cowtow to what the politicians say?
That deep down inside, I'm a little confused as to where in the Constitution (you know, that piece of paper that our federal govt is based upon), within the limited, enumerated powers actually granted to the Feds gives them the ability to regulate what type light bulb I use to light my house...? And please....don't use the excuse of the already bastardized commerce act...ugh!
But seriously....what attitude makes you question my maturity? I supposed thinking for oneself, and wanting to make all ones own choices is not mature or manly anymore?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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...
[citation needed]
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
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.
Sure they do, I keep my house about 16C in the winter and they don't take appreciably longer to reach full brightness, heck the CFL's in my garage door opener get plenty bright even on -30C mornings.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I have had a number of CFLs break in the past without any issues. (and without the need to call in the hazmat team) Most recently I had 2 dead bulbs with me intending to go to the shop to buy matching replacements and then find a suitable disposal bin to dispose of the CFLs in and one of the bulbs I had fell off the supermarket checkout counter and onto the floor and smashed. The supermarket people just cleaned up the mess like it was any other broken glass and moved on.
The main thing with CFLs is to make sure that (where possible) they get properly disposed of and dont end up in landfill because whilst they contain very small amounts of mercury individually, the amount of mercury that would be released when a whole bunch of bulbs are crushed by landfill crushers is enough to be an issue.
Well, originally the whole "I won't do it because they told me to" angle was all you had, which made you look like you were 5. Now that you've come around and solidified things a bit, this is not the case. What you just posted should have been your original post.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Except that you share electrical infrastructure with your community... The power you use affects how much excess capacity is available, how many power plants need to be built, etc... The lightbulbs everyone uses is, at a county and state level, an issue that affects a lot of people.
Now if you want to go Amish on us and supply your own power with solar cells and diesel generators, then it truly doesn't matter what kind of bulb you use.
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.
In addition to the other reasons mentioned...it isn't so much I don't doing because they told me...I don't think they should BE ABLE to tell me anything of the sort to begin with....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
> Do you know what an externality is?
Oh oh oh! I do! I do! Pick me!
Personally, I'm a leeeetle worried about mercury in our landfill, eventually getting into the water supply, because I don't think there's a chance in hell that the great unwashed public will dispose of CFLs properly. That's what an externality is.
Yeah, I know, "a cfl doesn't have any more mercury than a thermometer". According to energystar.gov, over a quarter million are bought every year in the US alone. Thassa lotta thermometers. And you know that the majority of them are the cheapest ones available, which don't last as long as the good ones. Because most people tend to go for price over performance, especially for things they are required by the government to buy. And you know that most people will throw them in the trash when they burn out. Because most people don't understand, or don't care about, the ramifications. I suspect we're going to be experiencing a significant externality in the next few years. I wouldn't be surprised at all if future generations don't look back and wonder what were we thinking?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Low hanging fruit. Changing the source, thanks to the will of the people, is even harder.
I'd love to see coal fired plants go the way of the incandescent light bulb. But planning infrastructure takes decades, building infrastructure takes years, and it takes about five minutes to form a "citizens united against changing the status quo" NIMBY group to raise a stink in the first place (and said group usually gets a nice chunk of change from the "I make a ton of money off of the status quo in the first place" political action committees).
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
Excellent analysis. I have two minor nits to pick.
I replaced all the bulbs in my house with LEDs about 3 years ago. I did the calculations and found that the payback point with my light usage in my house would be around 3 years. That point has passed and all the LEDs are still working. I am now in the point where I'm not buying more LEDs, but I'm enjoying the lower electric consumption.
Nah, Metal Halide (and High Pressure Sodium for flowering phase) is the only way to go.
Or, you know, that giant orb in the sky that does it for free.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
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.
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.
Of course, growing a particular plant outdoors can get you in trouble in many countries due to their corrupt governments and their for-profit prison systems. It's less risky to do it indoors because a warrant is required to enter a residence.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
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
People with a dimmer in the living room in a rented a flat with less than perfect wiring.
I switched to hallogen. Dimmable CFL survives on average 5 to 10 minutes on the dimmer - at full power, not even trying to dim them. At 15GBP each, I tried only twice. If you have electric heating (quite common in big cities nowadays), there is nothing wrong with the extra heat from the lamp. It complements quite well your heat accumulator heater - for example my desk hallogen lamp is creating a nice light and after half an hour a nice slightly warmer environment around the desk that let me keep the overall room temperature down a bit.
Of course, I could not say for sure how much I save / waste - that's the problem with lighting - at the end of the day, that is one of tiniest fraction of your energy bill for the majority of people, and it is difficult to get real data unless you have the tools to measure it.
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
Wish I had mod points... this math seems much more accurate, and it's not even taking into account the very low energy rate the orig poster had
Its also weird as a lifestyle thing where in a big enough house you burn out a couple old fashioned bulbs every month, so you keep a stockpile and buy them at the food store as a regular purchase. Once you go LED they burn out so rarely that 1) Its a noteworthy event 2) you don't keep a stock on hand of replacements (well, you could I guess, but just like I don't keep spare major appliances around ... Although a RAID array of clothes washers would help when a backlog accumulates)
LED bulbs are still undergoing rapid development, and they last for ages. So by the time one burns out, there's probably a Mr. Fusion version available, and nobody wants the stockpiled one.
(I'm still on CFLs because they refuse to burn out; one came with a 10-year warranty, and now after 9 years, it sometimes flickers a little before fully turning on.)
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
" I wouldn't be caught dead buying filament bulbs because that's poor people budgeting "
That's a very sad way of thinking... maybe you should just get a tattoo on your forehead that says "I'm not poor!", then you could relax.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
When LED's come down in cost by a factor of 10 and their CRI matches decent CFL's then I'll be all over them as they eliminate the single biggest failure point for me which is the glass tube, out of dozens of CFL's installed over the last 8 years at home I've only lost 3 to dead ballasts and none so far to dead phosphors (though a few are starting to get dim enough that I might consider replacing them).
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
You missed the lifetime of the LED being about quintuple the lifetime of the filament bulbs. This is no bull, they really do last seemingly forever.
I've broken plenty of glass bulbs in my life but never shattered a LED outside a lab environment (smoke emitting diodes, etc). I've replaced LEDs for phosphor shift/wear and dimness but thats an annoyance rather than completely broken like a shattered glass bulb.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
I have about 100 light bulbs. Almost all 40W ones.
CFLs suck because:
They do not turn on very fast.
The color temperature is wrong.
They cannot be fully dimmed.
They are not a point light source.
So I am using incandescent bulbs. I will try the halogen ones though - they are still available and the only downside is that the color is too white, but a simple resistor in series will solve that problem (and it will be fun figuring out how big a resistor I need).
OTOH I think that the regular bulbs are still available, maybe in a different shape, but for the normal E27 socket, so I might as well just buy some more of them.
I also saw long life "traffic lights" for sale once - these last 3000h but are even less energy efficient (100W bulb emits about the same light as a 80W bulb, "F" grade). I bought a couple of those and if I see them again, I'll buy more - to save space in the box as less bulbs will be needed. Also I installed a dimmer that slowly turns on the light (takes about 5 seconds, so still faster than the CFLs) to extend the life of the bulb (as the filament wears out the fastest during initial warmup).
As for the energy - my computers use ~1kW (on 24/7), my monitor uses ~140W (24" CRT), yea, the 40W light bulb uses so much power compared to that.
Your CFLs must be magical.
I'm forced to switch out the CFL in my dusk-to-dawn porch light with an incandescent every fall and reinstall a CFL in the spring: On cold nights the CFL never warms up enough to provide decent lighting.
Kid-proof tablet..
>I have about 100 light bulbs. Almost all 40W ones.
A large house with 4 bedroom, 4 bath, dining room, breakfast room, living room, theater room, family room, garage = 14 rooms. Do you have 7 bulbs per room?!?
>They do not turn on very fast.
>The color temperature is wrong.
Both of these are solved by not buying the absolute cheapest CFL you can find. Spend $2 per bulb instead of $1 and they turn on fast and have their color corrected. They even make CFLs with the sickening yellow color of incandescent if that's what you want.
>They cannot be fully dimmed.
Again, spend more money - $8 bulbs can be fully dimmed. Of course, if you have 7 bulbs per room, just turn some of them off!
>They are not a point light source.
?????
I've had CFL floodlight lamps, if that's what you mean.
Those 100 bulbs are a stash for future use, nor many are in use at a time, some rooms even have CFLs, I am saving those bulbs for my rooms - I do not like daylight and use electric light all the time. Here the bulbs last a bit longer than the rated 1000 hours (mot likely because I try not to turn them on/off frequently and not I have the slow dimmer).
They even make CFLs with the sickening yellow color of incandescent if that's what you want.
Good to know. Still, the color temperature of the incandescent bulb changes as it is dimmed, with CFL it probably doesn't.
>They are not a point light source.
?????
Clear incandescent or halogen bulb (or a single LED) is a point light source - the shadows have clean edges. CFLs, LEDs (if more than one LED is used, which they are for lighting, since LEDs produce narrow beams) and matte incandescent bulbs (as well as the clear ones, if the fixture is closed) produce diffused light - shadows become fuzzy.
To me the point source looks better.
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."
You're right, who wants to use lamps that have the highest Color Rendering Index in their optimal form (MR16 halogens with filtering reflectors? I'd love to see your reasoned reply to my detailed argument here http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3143051&cid=41459269
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
LED spectra still are not good enough. I'll avoid a long post again and simply redirect you to http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3143051&cid=41459269
"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!
GP clearly said 'time value of money'. This sort of analysis is not presented by you. Therefore, your results are not comparable to his. If you are not familiar with this, essentially it is saying that 1 euro today is worth 1.25 euros tomorrow.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
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)
You aren't allowed to dump your trash out the car window while you are driving down the highway, no matter how convenient that may seem.
That is because it is illegal and carries high fines. What does that have to do with consequences for people other than yourself?
If you want to go so anal about it, nothing can really replace incandescent lights. But why would I want to emulate sunlight in my living room when I'm watching TV at night? Only to give me permanent insomnia.
Granted, cheap CFL and LED lamps have horrible CRI, so go and buy reasonable quality lamps. That's what I do. If you're really really anal, go spend a fortune in HQI halogens. Like every thing in life, it's a matter of a compromise between the results you want and the expense you're willing to pay for.
GP clearly said 'time value of money'. This sort of analysis is not presented by you. Therefore, your results are not comparable to his. If you are not familiar with this, essentially it is saying that 1 euro today is worth 1.25 euros tomorrow.
You're mistaking the Euro zone for Venezuela. We don't have that much inflation. Besides, the price of electricity and the price of incandescent lamps will go up with time too, so what's the big deal?
There's an old saying in my country that goes like this:
Quando um gajo não sabe foder, até os colhões atrapalham.
When a guy doesn't know how to fuck, even the balls get in the way.
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
Because the Democratic Party is specifically antithetical to my beliefs. The Republican Party is just failing to follow their own stated beliefs.
Like I said, a nickel's worth difference.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
What? Are the light bulb police going to kick my door down to see if my light bulbs meet government standards?
Flamebait. Weak tea, my friend.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
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.
You can get a 50 W near-perfect daylight halogen for $7.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Well put.
Thank you. My sentiments exactly.
I'm not sure where you are getting your cfl bulbs but if they are not lasting any longer than your incandescents then something's wrong. Mine last for years (in fact most of mine I replaced about 5 years ago and they are still working fine). It's been a real money saver for me.
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.
So you with rather go with a bunch of liars?
Or the third alternative?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
If you believe that wasting energy is contributing to global warming, and if you believe that global warming will--if unchecked--have a deleterious effect on the health and well-being of humanity, then yes, incandescent bulbs are indeed bad for consumers. If the long term effects are real, then whatever we can do to minimize those effects will be an improvement. It's very similar to tobacco and asbestos, just with a longer time-frame. Again, if you believe the scientific community on those points.
If you don't believe that inefficient use of our energy resources will ultimately reduce our ability to survive and prosper on this planet, then obviously, you won't agree with my point.
The government does periodically get involved with tobacco and unhealthy foods--often to the chagrin of Libertarian-leaning members of the citizenry--imposing taxes on tobacco which help fund anti-smoking education for children and cancer research for those afflicted by the long-term effects, for instance. On the food side, they do things like banning Happy Meals (unhealthy meals incentivised with toys) from San Francisco, soft drinks not being sold on school grounds, and the requirement of making all nutritional information about food being sold at restaurants available to consumers.
But in the end, the great majority of the effect of these things lands on the individual partaking in them. Smokers are no longer allowed to smoke within 10 feet of a door, vent or openable window of any public building (restaurant, office, etc). So if they want to pay their taxes and slowly kill themselves, that's fine. They're not taking anyone down with them.
The idea behind the light bulbs is that, if you're burning 500 watts when you could be burning 80, you're not just paying a higher bill--affecting you--but you're slowly taking everyone down with you. And while the effect of one person doing so is minimal, the effect of hundreds of millions is significant. If this law means that, in 5 years, our resource use and associated carbon emissions from energy production for lighting are 20% of where they are today, that's a very good thing.
Again, only if you agree that these resources are finite and/or the effects of their usage are damaging. If you don't believe one or both of those, then you won't agree with the government's involvement. I'm guessing you do not agree with either of those ideas based on your post, and I'm not going to try to convince you. I'm simply trying to illustrate why someone in the position to make such a ban might feel like it is not only acceptable but also appropriate.
The CB App. What's your 20?
This is practically a Godwin response. Manufacturing light bulbs is not free speech.
And speaking of Godwin responses, I'm not sure what Elie Wiesel has to do with this. Unless you meant "weasel words". Even then, you're wrong; just because you disagree with something doesn't mean that something is "weasel words". That's what's called an ad hominem attack, and it's not the most constructive way to discuss a point.
You're right on the "mass scale" vs. "manufacturing". I believe that "manufacturing" implies some level of mass scale; that is to say, if you blow your own glass bulbs and thread your own filament, that's not manufacturing in the common sense. If you build an infrastructure to automate your own bulbs, that implies that they are not simply for your own use; the scale is beyond a personal one. But the implications of the particular wording could certainly be different from how I read them.
The penalties are probably simple; if such manufacture is discovered, it will be shut down. Maybe equipment will be confiscated, maybe a fine will be levied. But no, it's not censorship any more than any number of other regulations are not censorship. If, for instance, you want to brew your own beer, there's nothing stopping you from doing so. If you want to sell that beer on an open market, you need to get a license, and you need to conform to certain laws in order to do so. If you want to manufacture light bulbs, on a scale which will receive attention, you can do so; however, just as you can't brew and sell beer made with hemp resin extract, you can't make incandescent lights.
Now I've gone and done it: I've included marijuana legalization in the debate. Also a worthwhile discussion to have, but just as with the manufacture of light bulbs, it is not a freedom-of-speech issue.
The CB App. What's your 20?
I absolutely agree. I think it's a travesty that CFLs were foisted on us as the next great solution when breakage implies that the guys in the HAZMAT suits have to come out and do their dirty work. It reminds me of when doctors were touting Seldane as the next great allergy cure until people started dying of heart attacks by the dozens.
LED's are indeed getting cheaper, and while it'll be a while until they're truly price-competitive with incandescents, the only way to get there is through mass adoption. You may agree or disagree with the government having a role in this, but it's my impression that the change-over would have taken another 20 years if we'd waited for the invisible hand to nudge us in this direction. If ever.
The CB App. What's your 20?
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! --
Since you are too lazy to educate yourself: let me leave this link here for you.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I have already read that, so no, I'm not too lazy to educate myself. It's you who seems to be too lazy to read my post and try to understand it.
No. Your spergly fixation on a particular number used as an illustrative point does not negate the concept.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
They ARE your fucking parent.
They tell you to do many things. They tell you to wear seat belts so you do. They tell you to not go faster than x mph because it's safe. If not for you, then for the one you crash into.
And now they tell you to use the new light bulbs, because they save energy. Maybe you don't care, but my children will.
And the government knows that. So listen to your parents.
Privacy is terrorism.
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).
Trying to learn to act like an adult with an overbearing parent micromanaging your every move is like trying to learn how to ride a bike without taking the training wheels off.
Experience is the only way anything new is really learned.
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.