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."

35 of 1,080 comments (clear)

  1. All Edison's fault by FBInvestor · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:All Edison's fault by mellon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The irony is that there's now a huge market for modernized versions of the original edison bulbs, which radiate far more in the infrared and red, and far less in the colder portions of the spectrum. I was at a metting in the Andaz Hotel in downtown Manhattan last week, and they had chandeliers with maybe 20-30 of these bulbs each, producing very little light and a lot of heat, and then they had a separate cove lighting system so that we could actually _see_.

      So basically, a massive waste of energy solely for the purpose of fashion, which wasn't even at all attractive, and made several people quite uncomfortable because of the heat output. Oh, plus they probably had to crank up the AC to keep the room from overheating.

      It's a damned shame that Edison couldn't have invented the remote-phosphor LED lighting system, and instead forced Philips to do his dirty work a century later. But that's the way things go. Both he and Tesla were way too enamored of basic electricity. :)

      What astonishes me is that people aren't installing more of these Philips lights—they are amazing. You can't tell the difference between them and incandescents, but they last forever, use minimal power, and look _really_ cool (but don't look at them when they're on—they're _bright_!).

    2. Re:All Edison's fault by danomac · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I can attest to this - I have retrofitted (over a year or so) my whole house with the Philips LED bulbs.

      I have a fixture with multiple bulb sockets, I put in a 60W incandescent in one and the Philips LED in the other, and I could not see a difference in colour temperature at all. They stay warm-ish to the touch so you don't have to worry about spot heating problems in your home, they're great. Now they just need a bulb that can operate in an enclosed fixture.

      It did help that our local power utility subsidized these bulbs, they're expensive - between $40 - $50 a pop. I got mine for half price because of the subsidy.

    3. Re:All Edison's fault by Endlisnis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      All electric heaters are 100% efficient. Now, sometimes, some of the energy gets (temporarily) stuck as visible light, or sound or something else, but it all, eventually ends up as heat. It's just as efficient to heat your house with incandescent light bulbs (or even compact florescent light bulbs) as traditional baseboard heaters -- as long as you keep your curtains shut.

    4. Re:All Edison's fault by popeye44 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fucking Brilliant "pun intendend" require by code enforcement that every house have a dimmable switch or an automatic shutoff,
      Now make a law that says I cannot buy incandescent bulbs.. but if I put fluorescent bulbs in I burn out the switch or they use power constantly because they cannot be turned OFF.

      This is fucking ridiculous I'd rather heat my house with incandescent bulbs than continue to replace switches and burn out "energy saving" bulbs every 30 days. This is a waste of fucking time and my money.Just how environmentally conscious are we when we put 5 million fluorescent bulbs in the same landfill. 5 milligrams of mercury in each bulb which is enough to poison 6,000 gallons of water. I'm sorry but that just seems incredibly fucked up. When is the last time you immediately had to open a window and put on a mask in your house because you dropped an incandescent bulb.

        I'd give a LOT to have led's everywhere in a place where they would provide a good bit of light. My main issue is cost. I will indeed check the philips LED's.

      --
      Inane Comments are Generously Disregarded
    5. Re:All Edison's fault by MindShoot · · Score: 4, Informative

      100% sounds efficient, but if you're set on electric heating then it's pretty lousy compared to an electric heat-pump. For example, I have an aircon at home that runs at about 400-500% efficiency for heating - not unusual these days. Admittedly, though, it's not so easy to fit as a light bulb, and not so bright either!

    6. Re:All Edison's fault by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Life of a CFL is x hours or y on/off cycles.

      All the comparisons assume they will live x hours. They suck for bathrooms or anyplace where the bulb only stays on for a short time.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:All Edison's fault by NevarMore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It did help that our local power utility subsidized these bulbs, they're expensive - between $40 - $50 a pop. I got mine for half price because of the subsidy.

      No you got yours for half price up front, with the remaining half coming from either your electric bill or taxes over time. No such thing as a free lunch.

    8. Re:All Edison's fault by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can imagine a lawyer saying "interesting", which is a word you never want to hear from a lawyer if you're the one paying.

      You don't want to hear that from your doctor, either.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    9. Re:All Edison's fault by afidel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are arguing the wrong thing, a heat pump can produce a BTU load of more 3,415 BTU per hour per kw which is where the efficiency of greater than 100% is coming from. Sure, they aren't creating more than 3,415 BTU per hour per kw, but most people don't care about the thermodynamics of the universe, just the energy that is required to heat or cool their domicile.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    10. Re:All Edison's fault by tilante · · Score: 4, Informative

      From what you've written, you don't understand what a heat pump is and does. So let's try this again:

      There's no "transducer" converting electricity to heat in a heat pump. The primary parts of a heat pump are a compressor, a condenser, an evaporator, and an expansion valve. The compressor takes fluid, compresses it, and sends it into the condenser. Doing this raises the temperature of the fluid to a temperature above that of the surrounding area, so that heat flows from the fluid to the surrounding area, heating that area. On its way to another area, the fluid passes through an expansion valve, which lowers the pressure the fluid is under, into the evaporator. This causes the temperature of the fluid to drop to where it is below that of the surrounding area, so that heat flows from the surrounding area to the fluid, heating the fluid (and cooling the surrounding area).

      Thus, heat is moved from one area to another. Since the heat is not coming from the supplied power, but rather, from the area around the evaporator, the amount of heat let out on the heating side can be greater than the amount of power supplied.

      To put it another way: Let's say your house has a fireplace, but you want to have heat in other rooms. So, you take a bunch of bricks, lay them in front of the fire, and let them heat up. When they're hot, you carry them into the rooms you want to heat. When the bricks in a room start to get cold, you take them back to the fireplace to heat again, and grab hot bricks to take back to the room.

      The heat pump here is you, carrying the bricks back and forth. Your energy is being used to move the bricks, not to heat them -- it's the fire that heats them. In the same way, the heat pump isn't what's creating the heat -- it's simply moving fluid around, which is getting its heat from its surroundings while it's in the evaporator.

      Now, the compressor will be less than 100% efficient in converting electrical energy to kinetic energy as it moves the fluid around -- but since heat pump users are less interested in how well their heat pump moves fluid, and more interested in how much heat it can output, and the heat being supplied from the outside environment is effectively free, heat pumps have their efficiency rated in how much heat the condenser outputs under normal operating conditions vs. how much electrical energy is supplied to them, and that number is more than 100%. That's not thermodynamic efficiency, which can never exceed 100%, but it's the efficiency that the people using heat pumps care about.

    11. Re:All Edison's fault by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 4, Informative

      Instead of giving into FUD perhaps you should educate yourself. First (in the US at least), there is no "ban," it is a efficiency requirement that traditional incandescent bulbs do not fit. However, there are high-efficiency incandescents that DO fit that requirement. Further, it is an efficiency requirement for "common application" not for special purpose. This isn't a ban on heat lamps, nor special application like task lighting, appliances, etc.. Are you going to get away with paying $0.99 on a 4-pack of 60W bulbs in the future? No, because manufacturing is switching their capacity over to CFL and LED. Will you still be able to get a 4-pack of 60W bulbs or a comparable alternative? Yes, of course.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    12. Re:All Edison's fault by mellon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Heat pumps work by moving heat from a source to a sink, not by generating heat (although of course they do generate heat because they aren't 100% efficient in what they do: pumping heat). So as long as your source has heat to move, you can deliver significantly more heat to the sink than you could get by putting the same energy into a resistive heat emitter. Our house in Vermont is heated by a single 12.5kbtu air-to-air heat pump. The source is outside air; in the winter, we cool the air passing over the exterior device, but a fan continually blows air across it so that we are never cooling the same air. You may think winter air is cold, but tell that to a space alien with liquid helium blood. To them it's fatally hot. So the air is maybe ten or twenty degrees cooler after it passes through the exterior heat exchanger, but there's a relatively endless supply of warm (say, 0F) air to replace it. Consequently, we get a nice multiplier over resistive heat: while the net heat delivered to the system as a whole is the same, the heat delivered to the conditioned space is three times greater. Physics is full of win.

  2. Ban is dumb by JMZero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...
    1. Re:Ban is dumb by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Agreed, cigarettes are harmful too, but it's still legal to sell them. They just get taxed into oblivion. The same should be true for incandescent light bulbs.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    2. Re:Ban is dumb by rockytopchip · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There already is a built in tax. Buy the less efficient bulb, pay more for energy costs. Some people prefer incandescent bulbs, do you want to take away their freedom to choose? Let the market decide the issue, keep government out of it.

    3. Re:Ban is dumb by Imsdal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Taxes should indeed be used to modify behavior. High taxes on energy, tobacco and alcohol makes perfect sense. High taxes on labor makes no sense. In this case, taxing energy should be enough to make cheaper sources of light preferrable for consumers.

    4. Re:Ban is dumb by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem is that the cost of energy as currently setup in the US does no account for negative externalities and every attempt to fix that situation has been blocked so they pushed through what they could (not that it makes any significant difference since domestic lighting is less than .1% of all energy use, but it was something they could take back to their voters who superficially care about the environment).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  3. Labelling by slim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Labelling by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > the spread was too narrow.

      Yup. We put up some track lights and found the LED bulbs would illuminate a small patch of floor, but blind you if you looked directly into it.

      In order to have lots of light and stay within the current rating of the track, I mixed them 50/50 with halogens. The halogens lit the room, the led were set to be pointing at things like desks that benefit from better illumination.

      LED room lights have a way to go before they're a complete replacement.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    2. Re:Labelling by agallagh42 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      I've had good luck with the Philips Warm White CFL bulbs. They have a colour that is almost exactly the same as incandescant (I can't tell the difference by looking at them) and they turn on to full brightness instantly. Literally a small fraction of a second, with no flickering at all.

      --
      Carpe Cerevisi - Seize the Beer
    3. Re:Labelling by mcmonkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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."

      I had a service come in to do an energy audit on my home. I expected to hear a lot about insulation and drafty windows. Instead the guy just went through and changed all the bulbs he could to CFLs. I've also purchased CFLs in the past. These are GE and Sylvania bulbs.

      1. These bulbs do not last as long as advertised. I've been in my house for 8 years and there are fixtures that have had bulbs burn out at least twice (ie, fixtures on their 3rd CFL bulb in 8 years).

      2. Dimmable? If you consider going from off to warming up to on dimmable, then yes. If you mean on demand dimmable with a dimmer switch, then no not dimmable.

      3. Warm up time. True story: a couple days after I had my "energy audit" I'm a the foot of my stairs and flip the switch for the lights at the top of the stairs.

      Nothing happens. It's a 3-way with the other switch at the top, so I flip it back, wondering if the lights were on and I had just turned them off. But still nothing. I give another few flips, still nothing. I'm very puzzled, because light switches are usually very reliable. I don't remember ever having to replace a regular light switch that stopped working.

      Then I look up. The switch is working. The lights are coming on. It's just they are so dim, unless I am looking directly at the bulbs, I can't tell if they are on or off.

      My daily routine used to be to come home from work, go to my bedroom, turn on the over head light, change out of my work gear in to evening wear, and then go about my night. Now, I come home, go to the bedroom, turn on the over head light, turn on the night stand light, make sure I leave the door open with the hall light on, so I can see while I'm changing. By the time I'm done, all the bulbs have warmed up and I'm squinting from the brightness, but by then I'm leaving the room and turning all those lights off.

      So if someone has a line on CFLs that don't need minutes to warm up, please share! Until then, I'm going through what CFLs I have and as they burn out, replacing them with real light bulbs that work.

      I realize technologies take time to mature and I understand the concept of a public beta test, but CFLs are being pitched as a final product when they aren't nearly as good as the thing they are supposed to replace.

    4. Re:Labelling by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

      The GE CFL's that Walmart and Samsclub sell will reach 90+% brightness in about 2-3 seconds and 100% in under a minute. As far as the dimable CFL's, they are available but they don't dim as far, and those do take considerable time to warm up. I stopped buying them after the first purchase and now purchase the energy efficient halogen bulbs for my downstairs can lights that are on a dimmer, they're about halfway between a traditional incandescent and a CFL in efficiency and won't be banned under the efficiency guidelines.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  4. Republicans disrupting a REPUBLICAN ban! by nweaver · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Republicans disrupting a REPUBLICAN ban! by markt4 · · Score: 5, Informative

      This Bill passed in the House 314-100 with 95 Republicans voting for it (with 96 voting against it). In the Senate, it passed 86-8, with 40 Republicans voting in favor of the Bill, and only 7 voting against. And, of course, President Bush, a Republican, signed it into law.

  5. Re:republicans by allometry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My understanding of their argument is how efficiency is met as a goal. If you read the story, Representative Burgess said, "It's something the market place should determine. Let consumers make the choice. There was no reason for the government to make that choice for them."

    That doesn't sound like standing against innovation or hating on, "the gay." Certainly, it doesn't sound like that's giving to the rich. In fact, banning incandescents seems like it's going to cost us more money. Where you or I may be OK paying extra for a bulb that lasts twenty years, perhaps the poor you're talking about, the ones that do count pennies, will be fucked at the register when they can't replace something that used to be less than a buck.

    But this is for a greater cause, right? I mean, energy efficiency. We've got to break a few eggs to make omelets here!

    I'm all for a cleaner, safer, planet. But, I'm more in favor of individual freedoms and responsibilities. However, those pesky poor people and their damn hoarding. If only they were as rich as our dear leaders in DC, maybe this wouldn't be a problem.

    "It's something the market place should determine. Let consumers make the choice. There was no reason for the government to make that choice for them."

    --
    http://www.allometry.com
  6. Re:Democrats by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Uh, you do know that a Republican president signed this into law, right?

  7. LED is freakishly expensive up front by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?
    1. Re:LED is freakishly expensive up front by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Beyond just the fact that up-front costs suck, if you're poor and your kid knocks over your lamp you're out $23. If you're poor and you move then unless you plan on bringing your bulbs with you, risking shattering them in the move, you're out the $23 each.

      $23 is dinner for a week if you're poor. It's only a light bulb if you're rich.

  8. No, there will be no ban on incandescent bulbs. by aabrown · · Score: 5, Informative

    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&

  9. Re:republicans by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 4, Informative
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090706933.html

    What made the plant here vulnerable is, in part, a 2007 energy conservation measure passed by Congress that set standards essentially banning ordinary incandescents by 2014. The law will force millions of American households to switch to more efficient bulbs.

    The resulting savings in energy and greenhouse-gas emissions are expected to be immense. But the move also had unintended consequences.

    Rather than setting off a boom in the U.S. manufacture of replacement lights, the leading replacement lights are compact fluorescents, or CFLs, which are made almost entirely overseas, mostly in China.

    Consisting of glass tubes twisted into a spiral, they require more hand labor, which is cheaper there. So though they were first developed by American engineers in the 1970s, none of the major brands make CFLs in the United States.

    Whether the loss of this factory is a cost worth paying for increased energy efficiency is a different question, but the regulations did shut down a plant.

  10. Re:republicans by bennomatic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What Republicans? I miss Republicans. The people marching under the GOP banner are a whole different animal than the Republicans I grew up with. I really enjoyed hating Reagan, and I kept up the fight against Bush 1 even though I knew that in many ways, he wasn't so bad. It really got bad with Bush 2--not so much the man, but his ultra-right brain trust--and the election of a (in the eyes of his detractors) mulatto kenyan indonesian communist fascist nazi muslim anti-white racist intellectual just boiled the right-hand fringe to a froth. That "froth" are not, in my eyes, Republicans. They're like the Republican version of a zombie invasion.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  11. CFL's aren't all they're cracked up to be by jenningsthecat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  12. Even better than that by Immerman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  13. Re:20 x 100 W bulbs?!?!?!? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.