Slashdot Mirror
Europe To Ban Halogen Lightbulbs (theguardian.com)
After nearly 60 years of brightening homes and streets, halogen lightbulbs will finally be banned across Europe on 1 September. From a report: The lights will dim gradually for halogen. Remaining stocks may still be sold, and capsules, linear and low voltage incandescents used in oven lights will be exempted. But a continent-wide switchover to light-emitting diodes (LEDs) is underway that will slash emissions and energy bills, according to industry, campaigners and experts. LEDs consume one-fifth of the energy of halogen bulbs and their phase-out will prevent more than 15m tonnes of carbon emissions a year, an amount equal to Portugal's annual electricity usage. Philips, the lighting manufacturer estimates consumer savings of up to 112 pound ($144) a year from the switchover because LEDs last much longer than halogens and use far less power.
How convenient!
Use an IR bulb, which probably qualifies as "special purpose."
Excellent news!
Soon their more efficient, less expensive countries will be able to outcompete the inefficient places that have not moved to low cost green energy and low cost LEDs.
The south can continue to use Kerosene and Whale Oil, of course.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I like the light that Halogen bulbs give off, but they also emit lots of far-ultraviolet radiation and can cause cancer without a UV cover. A friend of mine got cancer of the hand after many years of exposure doing intricate desk work.
The sooner we can get rid of Halogen the better.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
Sorry but everyone time I hear that my energy bill will go down due to increases in efficiency just means they increase the rate. I'm all for newer, more efficient technologies but don't try and sell it like I'll spend less money on electricity.
I realize this is taking place in Europe, so perhaps their utilities are socialized and those utility services aren't by for-profits. I do know people work there and none of them will be likely to see a pay cut due to less energy being used, but the company will definitely have lower revenue.
Here in the states, every time we are told to save save save and we do it, the bill rates always get jacked up because the utilities start going broke when we become more mindful of our energy usage. Nothing worse as a consumer to use less of something, possibly at an inconvenience to oneself, and get charged as much or more when it's a metered service.
At the same time, the local energy company does need to make money otherwise the workers get laid off and the plant may close and electricity will definitely go up in price at that point due to there being less generated.
Still, no one is going to save money but it's great we are using less energy and leaving a smaller carbon footprint.
Just search eBay for 100W commercial long-life incandescent A19 E26 medium base or
"Rough Service" bulbs.... plenty of options
All of them? White LED's have a mean (not max) light emitting on-time of 22 years. (that means 8 hours a day? 66 years of "use")
I suspect halogens will also still be allowed in "hard use" instances, like the lights very high up on towers in harsh weather.
Just coincidentally, I'm in the process of switching from those damned CFLs to LEDs. I say "damned" because although they initially met the promise of long life [1], later "value engineered" bulbs didn't last any longer, in my experience, than the incandescents they replaced. I'm really hoping LEDs don't fall to the same process -- value engineered to a pale shadow of their original glory.
I always felt that CFLs were a stopgap solution until we found a practical low power light bulb. It appears that LED is that solution, but it may be too early to tell.
[1]. It so happens, of the four original CFLs I bought in the 1990's, the last one -- the back porch light, stopped working last night. And will be replaced with an LED. During that time, I've had many many CFLs fail, some in the space of only a few months. In quantity, they really weren't manufactured very well.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Hasbro switched EasyBake Ovens to a dedicated heating element in 2011.
with incandescents — the ive found the colour spectrum left me with the 'blues' — it was only when halogens came on the scene, that i felt that we finally had a bulb that got us closer to a natural sunshine daylight full spectrum bulb. then came compact flourescents —those toxic (mercury) abonitations made poor lighting quality manditory. thank god LEDs came in just in time to forstall the takeover of the CFLs.
consumers should be given a choice — halogen bulbs still have the best colour spectrum imo.
why should we be banned from having good colour quality bulbs!? tax them, or whatever if the
reason is because of the energy efficiency — but it is not because the quality of the lighting is better.
I live in "backwards" Alabama and I changed over to LED lights a while back. Even my flashlights are LEDs. Most of my friends and family have switched, too. The only incandescent bulbs in my house are in the oven and refrigerator (they'll probably outlast me). Welcome to the 21st Century, Europe!
All of them. fluorescent MTBF is 25K hours, while LED is 75K hours.
I can't wait for the light bulb black market to come around. Mostly because I want there to be funny mob stories based around getting those sweet, sweet halogens.
Don't know what you're doing with your lights. We converted all our recessed ceiling lights throughout the house to LED four years ago, and I haven't had to replace a single bulb since. With the old halogen spots, I was up on a ladder at least once a month replacing one that had burned out.
You do understand the difference between a mean and significant statistical outliers right? Most incandescent bulbs are not rated anywhere near that long (most of the commercial ones were something like 1000 hours when I was still buying them) and the ones that could last that long are vastly different in design than the cheap commercial bulbs that were being sold.
You're comparing an apple cart to a banana plantation.
I have a free-standing halogen lamp. It's wonderfully bright but I rarely use it because it gives off a tremendous amount of heat and I do worry about its excessive power usage. But let me tell you, if ever there's a fly buzzing about the room that I can't catch or otherwise shoo out of the house, I turn on the light and let the little f#@&*r fry. The smell of roasting bug that inevitably wafts through the room ten minutes after I turn the lamp on after being annoyed for an hour by the victim's buzzing is extremely satisfying.
It's the only reason I keep the damn lamp, quite honestly.
I've yet to see a CFL or LED bulb that lasts as long as incandescent bulbs in the US.
You must be holding it wrong. Even the dollar-store LED bulbs I buy last way longer than incandescents. CFLs are better, but even they don't measure up to the rated lifetime of LEDs.
Dude. You're comparing LED "mean lifetime" with "longest-lasting" incandescents. Seriously?
Every end has half a stick.
Filament LEDs show some promise. As a plus many use a glass case instead of plastic.
Cheap chinese LEDs tend to fail quite frequently, often not making it past a single year. The power supplies that are build into the LED bulbs also like to blow up a lot. That said, cheap chinese Halogen bulbs aren't exactly long lasting either. There is plenty of cheap garbage out there that will go nowhere near the theoretical lifetime.
Well-made LED's might. Crap that barely passed Q/A and got sold off as seconds, not so much. And that's not even accounting for crappy capacitors in the garbage cap dropper power supplies most of these have. Then they skimp on the cap values, and you get a nice barely perceptible 50 Hz flicker to really improve the experience.
I would advise buying your next LED bulbs on an online site that allows you to post reviews, then when they fail, going back to the product page and giving it a bad review. And try to remember to give a good review to whatever bulb has outlasted the others once a year.
Someone had to do it.
Not because incandescent bulbs are being phased out but because it does not solve any problems. [...] Sure power will be lower
So, which is it? Or does reducing power usage not count as solving a problem?
Just like incandescent bulbs have always been manufactured to be intentionally limited so will LED lights. Waste will not be cut by any meaningful measurement.
That's exactly what I said when they started selling automobiles -- the change would never help with the nation's horseshit-in-the-streets problem, because auto manufacturers would deliberately add horseshit to their cars so that they could sell more of them. Perfectly logical, no?
Come to think of it, I think I know where all the horseshit has actually gone to -- it's now being used to power incoherent Slashdot posts.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
What didn't you like? The taste or the crunch?
#DeleteFacebook
Do you want minions? Because that's how you get minions.
#DeleteFacebook
energy savings != monetary savings
#DeleteFacebook
I've been using cheepo lowes led bulbs for years and have only had one fail. My first one about 8 years old is still in use on my bed stand.
love is just extroverted narcissism
I've heard the point you're referring to before and generally I've agreed with it (take driving "green" cars for example). But with lighting? That doesn't make a lot of sense. You just screw in an LED bulb when the old incandescent or halogen has burned out. There's no reason people would go around adding more lamps and such. In commercial uses thought to some extent I could see this happen, but in the residential case, which I think these types of policies are aimed at, it certainly will have a big impact.
... to get the 3D CAD files and make your own bulbs!
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
I wonder what the net energy savings actually is, since people simply now leave the lights on all the time.
I stocked up on hundreds of incandescent bulbs in the US before the ban went into effect. The black-body light is superior, full stop. No peaky semiconductor emission frequencies shining through the phosphor, leaving some colors dim. They also make my my eyes hurt if I happen to look at them directly.
I do mix incandescent with fluorescent at my workbench, for things like reading resistor color codes.
My efficiency plan is to turn them off when not in use.
Coated halogen bulbs have a bell curve that matches sunlight almost perfectly, and gets rid of the far ultraviolet. For some things, these coated halogens are indespensible. For instance, I bet that in the Louv're in Paris there are many coated halogens that are used to display paintings. Color is killed by LED light, which as you said is mostly blue. The LEDs and CFLs that claim to be "warm" have only a narrlow spike in the red regtion, and do not represent a contiguous bell curve like real sunlight. For color and photography work, and for museums, this is a bad thing to outlaw halogen
And incandescent lights have burned continuosly for over 115 years, that means a wee bit more than 22 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest-lasting_light_bulbs
It's easy to make in incandescent light bulb that lasts for decades or even centuries -- just run a lower voltage. For example, take an iron bar and run enough current through it to glow red, maybe seal it in an oxygen-free glass bulb...That will give out light for a long long time. Of course, you may be running a few thousand watts of power through it to get a tiny amount of light, but that's the cost of longevity.
A standard 60W incandescent bulb will put out around 850 lumens and last for around 1100 hours. You can get a "long life" variant that is rated to last for 4000 hours.... but it'll only emit around 450 lumens, so is about half as efficient.
If you don't care about efficiency or brightness, you can make an LED last much longer... there's some 20 year old equipment in our electrical room with old red indicators LED's that are still burning after 20 years of 24x7 operation.
Most incandescent bulbs are not rated anywhere near that long (most of the commercial ones were something like 1000 hours when I was still buying them) and the ones that could last that long are vastly different in design than the cheap commercial bulbs that were being sold.
Not "vastly different", just a thicker (=stronger) filament wire, and -possibly- tweaks to wire supports, gas mixture or whatever.
It's easy to make a long lasting incandescent. But it would also be very inefficient - worse than they already are. Therefore an 'optimum' is picked where bulbs don't need replacing too often, but still have acceptable efficiency. That optimum is picked around 1000 hours for regular incandescents (longer for halogen lamps due to their halogen cycle). Make 'em longer lasting, and you pay more for electricity. Make 'em more efficient, and you replace bulbs more often. So contrary to what some people think, that is not some industry conspiracy! Of course within that efficiency <-> longevity spectrum (no pun intended ;-) there can still be quality differences between bulbs.
Longer lasting incandescents do exist. Mostly meant for industrial uses where bulb replacement may be more costly than pulling some extra Watts. But such bulbs don't get around the problem described above. Likewise you can run incandescents on a lower voltage to increase their lifespan (in the case of halogens, only within limits). See "lamp rerating". But effectively that just takes the remaining few % of efficiency, and adds it to the waste heat you already had.
That should be an incandescent bulb has been on that long. I also don't think you would want to do much reading around that bulb (as I recall it is rather dim and has a very yellow hue).
Although LEDs reduce carbon dioxide emissions, if you don't use the right ones, they could make dark skies worse. Blue light is very disruptive to humans and animals. The International Dark Sky Association has the details on how to use dimmer lights and LEDs and nothing above 3000K. Also, don't illuminate where you don't need to: http://darksky.org/lighting/lighting-basics/.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
1) Free Speech does not, and never has, protected someone from the consequences of their free speech. The classic example is shouting fire in a crowded theatre, leading to false calls to the emergency services who respond and possible panic and injury among the other theatre goers. If you stand up and exhort other like-minded people to begin a race war and murder people whose skin or faith doesn't match yours, you may become an accessory to murder before the fact if someone in your chosen audience actually goes through with it.
2) The First Amendment says that the government cannot restrict your speech. It does not say that private individuals or organizations have to listen to you, or to provide a platform from which you can broadcast your opinions. Moreover, any platform or forum that chooses to support or host a certain type of content may also be criminally and civilly liable of that content leads to someone breaking the law.
3) The choice to accept or reject speech on a private platform or forum is also given First Amendment protection. If I host a blog, I can refuse to allow statements I disagree with to appear in my comment section. Telling me I had to keep those comments visible would restrict my free speech.
I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
They had LED bulbs before any incandescent bulb ban was in place.
And they were much more expensive than they are today. My local big-box store sells house brand LED"s for around $1/each
Start your own Facebook clone and say whatever you want.
I've yet to see a CFL or LED bulb that lasts as long as incandescent bulbs in the US. I've used several brands and wattage's. What's most frustrating about the new LEDs is they're all advertised as '10 year bulbs' but have a 1 year warranty, then die in 9 months.
The higher cost per bulb is simply not worth the savings in my electric bill, especially with constantly rising rates.
So if the bulb dies after 9 month get a replacement under warranty. Extending the warranty to 10 years wouldn't help your bulb that died after only 9 months.
Right.
He should have said "invest in **more** factories".
"So, which is it? Or does reducing power usage not count as solving a problem?"
Your thinking is too narrow. Just like how everyone found out that the total energy needed to produce ethanol as a fuel was not really saving any effort, if LED light manufacturing is allowed to do the same we are not "technically saving energy". We are just playing a card trick by moving the cost of energy outside of your home and towards the constant manufacturing of cheap and poor quality LEDs that do not last. But it appears that this little bait and switch is lost on you which is they reason I said what I said.
"That's exactly what I said when they started selling automobiles -- the change would never help with the nation's horseshit-in-the-streets problem, because auto manufacturers would deliberately add horseshit to their cars so that they could sell more of them. Perfectly logical, no?"
Speaking of "horseshit". The mfg industries have a well documented history of "planned obsolescence" and your mockery only shows how ignorant you are of it all. It is far too easy to trick people like you because all that is needed is to put on a little "theater" to get you to believe anything.
I agree with your idea, the point I was trying to get at is that once again the politicians wasted a bunch of effort putting in "feel good" laws that are more waste of time than a value add to the problem at hand.
These kinds of laws are nothing more than feel good legislation to get ignorant voters off their backs or an end run parlay by mfgs to gain a market advantage through regulation.
If they want to make sensible regulation by enforcing a minimal manufacturing quality like forcing LEDs to carry a minimum 20 year warranty where mfgs are also legally required to stage recycling centers at hardware suppliers and "free shipping" then they would be getting somewhere. Until then, it is my opinion they just tricked a whole bunch of voters into thinking the did something good without really doing anything meaningful at all... other than to get rid of halogen bulbs.
The same amount of energy and waste will likely be had with LED production because it is just too easy to game the system.
Incandescent bulbs are the least "natural" light. This is assuming by natural you mean sunlight. If by natural you mean "what I am used to" then I guess I will buy that. The light of incandescent bulbs is on the yellow end of the spectrum (yes I know you can get daylight incandescent bulb talking in generality here). The "sterile like warehouse/hospital fluorescents" lights are toward the blue end of the spectrum. Sunlight tends to be closer to the "sterile like warehouse/hospital fluorescents" color temperature than the light of incandescent bulbs.
As to your anecdote on the firehouse incandescent bulb, let's just wait a hundred years to see if there are any LEDs that are still running before we praise one over the other.
incandescent light - 2700K-3000K (you can get cool white and bright white in the 4000K-6000K as well)
led light - 4100K (you can find LEDs in all ranges 2700K-6500K)
sunlight - 5000K-5500K (at midday)
Just like incandescent bulbs have always been manufactured to be intentionally limited so will LED lights.
You can make a light bulb that lasts longer, but it will also use more power for a given amount of light. It would cost you more to pay for the additional power consumption than it does to replace the light bulbs. LED lights, on the other hand, actually will be designed to sell to a price point that has nothing to do with lifespan. That's why the glass globes fell off my otherwise perfectly-working Cree lights.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Free Speech does not, and never has, protected someone from the consequences of their free speech. The classic example is shouting fire in a crowded theatre, leading to false calls to the emergency services who respond and possible panic and injury among the other theatre goers
I always love the irony of people using this analogy to try and support restriction on free speech. You are obviously completely clueless about the fact that the analogy was first made by a judge in a legal ruling which ended up sending a man to prison for the "crime" of passing out pamphlets opposing the draft.
The ruling was eventually overturned, but not before the defendant (and many like him) spent years in jail for voicing an opinion which is commonplace today. However the result of it being overturned is that, yes, in the united states at least, you CAN yell fire in a crowded theatre. What you can't do is engage in speech which "advocates imminent lawless action", as in you can't tell the theatre goers to burn down the building.
If LEDs are so wonderful, why not let the people decide what bulbs to buy?
If you aren't being a Poe, the biggest reason that CFL's and then LEDs have been brough into being is that they use less electricity, so you don't have to build that nice new nuc plant in your backyard.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I was an early adopter of the little pigtail compact fluorescent bulbs. THey were supposed to last way longer while saving electricity, and so were WORTH the higher cost per bulb. Except that they did NOT last longer. And if they saved pennies for electricity, they cost many dollars for expensive bulbs. Now we're dealing with the same issue with LEDs; LED bulbs cost $5 each (AFTER the considerable decrease in the last year) and still save a few pennies on the power bill.
I'm not sure that we're ahead in the long run. 75 watt incandescent bulbs used to be a buck or so for a 4-pack. Now I can get 10 LED bulbs for ONLY $50! And both LED and CFL bulbs were extraordinarily sensitive to heat buildup in enclosed fixtures. An incandescent bulb in the hallway lasts for a year and provides a lot of light. An LED bulb was a lot dimmer ( 6 watts, with an "effective illumination" of 60 watts) and lasted only a few weeks. Heat buildup, you see.
The inspector for my home says it passed for grounding. I have also verified this visually myself and with a wiring tester. So far the test is okay unless I have a fault somewhere that showed good while I tested it but gets faulty if something shifts, which is possible.
However, I am not aware of bad grounding being a culprit for LED failures. Grounding is not something that really has play in electrical applications in this way. Electrical grounding is a safety mechanism and if grounding is being engaged in a way that it is part of my LED failures, then I likely have a bigger problem than proper grounding going on and need to find out the source of whatever is causing electrical problems that are leading to early LED failure.
Why let the people decide? Because they never had any choice. Companies and marketing departments decide what you buy, not you, and not your neighbors.. and what your neighbors buy determines what price you pay and what choices you have on the shelves. Consumers do not decide squat.
Because this is how you get more Brexit.
energy savings != monetary savings
It does if you're a taxpayer. Responding to forest fires, floods, disease outbreaks, et cetera costs money.
Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.
They had LED bulbs before any incandescent bulb ban was in place.
No, previous anonymous coward has a point. They existed, true, but they wouldn't be affordable until they were popular, which creates a chicken-and-egg issue.
For LEDs, this appears to have been a beneficial move. But the US tried to ban incandescents when the only affordable alternative was CFLs, which was a crappy technology. If the government is going to interfere with our lives, the least they could do is pick a decent product.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
If people want efficiency, long life, power savings, they will buy them of their own free will.
Why mandate and force people to buy certain products.
Let people decide what is best for themselves.
Typical nanny state control freaks !
Funny...
We can actually tell your parents yelled out those same lines back when the phasing out of leaded gasoline was announced.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Electricity is responsible for about 34% of US carbon emissions. Of those 34%, about 7% are residential and commercial lighting, with less than half of that being residential lighting. We're down to less than 1% of US carbon emissions due to residential lighting now. Halogen is less than 10% of that market, so we're down to less than 0.1% of US carbon emissions due to halogen bulbs. LEDs are a lot more efficient than those, saving you probably up to 75% of those carbon emissions, but the impact overall is negligible.
Furthermore, some of those savings may not be realized because in many situations, the lower heat output from LEDs needs to be made up for by more heating. It's also likely that the environmental impact of manufacturing LEDs is higher than for halogen bulbs. And although nominally LEDs last a long time, the electronics in them have significant failure rates in my experience.
Does that mean it's a bad thing to replace your halogen bulbs with LEDs? Not at all. I did that in my home years ago. But it won't "slash emissions and energy bills"; in fact, there are high up-front costs and the main effect of these laws is likely going to be to increase prices and compliance costs for new buildings a little.
The incandescent lightbulbs aren't banned for use. They just can't make more of them. A lot of stores still have them in stock. But they're less reliable than LEDs, take more power, don't last as long on average, and over time will cost more money.
Great. Now look up the prices of 3-way LED bulbs.
Seriously, the right way is not to ban bulbs, just simply require bulbs with a certain level of lumens / watts. In particular, whenever a new tenant or new owner is moving in, then all bulbs should have at least 70 lumens / watts and no hazmat materials. THis way, new homes, along with landlords, will all have to have put in high LPW and safe bulbs. After that, if somebody wants to swap around a bulb, then it is their choice.
This approach is probably better than simply banning bulbs.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Your disagreement with one of my points also does not invalidate my other points. That, in general, free speech doesn't not exempt you from consequences, nor does it require any to listen to you. It certainly doesn't force others to provide a venue for your speech.
For those who advocate extremism (Muslim, Christian, white, black, it doesn't matter) there are websites where those ideas are welcome. Facebook choosing not to allow such content on their systems does not constitute censorship. Nor should it be considered an attack on those beliefs, though many extremists spend a LOT of time and energy spinning it as part of the overall attack on their beliefs so they can justify their militant position.
An actual attack would be if I were to start advocating that we should go along with their ideas, fire up the concentration and death camps, start executing the people I find objectionable without due process, only to do so NOT to the Jews or the majority of Muslims, but to focus on the white supremacists and Muslim extremists. Lets see if those people in white hoods or brown shirted uniforms still think there is nothing wrong in mass genocide when it is applied to themselves.
For the record, I don't advocate that, and never will. I do, however, advocate that law enforcement be aware of those movements, keep close tabs on them and, if individuals break the law, to arrest them and try them in court. I advocate that such current issues be included in the social or civic studies students cover in school. Those who do not learn from, or even remember history are doomed to repeat it. If we are, as a society, to avoid creating another holocaust or holodomor, we need to teach our children what those were and how they arose. I advocate that, any time such militant and potentially violent people speak out on their views, that it is the simple human and patriotic duty of us moderates to speak out in opposition.
The only thing evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
to secure cheap energy like the US is. Your bill isn't going down but your dependency is.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You mistake cynicism for wisdom.
Yes, companies have at times engaged in "planned obsolescence". In a monopoly scenario (or an oligopoly where all manufacturers are colluding with each other), that can be a nefarious way to increase profits at the expense of consumers and the environment, because in those scenarios consumers have little choice but to buy a bad product more often.
The problem with your analysis is, the LED industry is nothing like a monopoly or a colluding oligopoly. There are hundreds of LED manufacturers competing for the consumer's dollar, and plenty of information online for consumers to read up on regarding which LED manufacturers put out a quality, long-lasting product and which ones do not.
In this scenario, manufacturers that intentionally sabotage their own product will not be able to compete against manufacturers who do not sabotage their own product, and will either go out of business or will be relegated to the very low-end, extremely-price-conscious, lowest-margin parts of the market.
If your ideas about how the manufacturing works were true, consumers would not have access to any high-quality products, since there would never be any economic incentive for any manufacturer to increase product quality -- and yet a quick look around you will demonstrate this is not the case. Compare the quality of automobiles today, versus automobiles in the 1970's. Or computers today versus computers in the 1990's. Or Internet service today versus 10 years ago. It all continually gets better and/or cheaper as technology permits, to the extent that free competition exists between manufacturers that forces them to maximize their quality/cost ratio if they want consumers to buy their own product rather than a competitor's product.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Great. Now look up the prices of 3-way LED bulbs.
I'm not my grandmother, I don't own any 3 way lamps - which is probably why the 3-way LED's cost so much, not much demand. Though the 3 way LED's seem to cost between $8 - $20. So maybe it'll take 2 years to recoup your costs instead of 2 months.
Why let the people decide? Because they never had any choice. Companies and marketing departments decide what you buy, not you, and not your neighbors.. and what your neighbors buy determines what price you pay and what choices you have on the shelves.
Consumers do not decide squat.
Yeah no one is ever responsible for their actions.
The analogy of shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not invalidated by it being used in a case which was later overturned. The reason the 1919 Schenck vs The United states was overturned wasn't because the analogy itself was bad. It was overturned because his actions in protesting the draft did not present the "clear and present danger" that the United States government claimed it did. Schenck vs the US and its later overturning is one of the foundation cases of the right of a citizen to be a conscientious objector.
You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The reason that the analogy is bad is because shouting fire in a crowded theater itself does not "present that kind of clear and present danger". On the contrary, the judge who coined the analogy applied it perfectly; he was concerned that Schenck's speech would create harm to the nation by encouraging others to engage in a criminal act - namely refusing to be drafted (which is still illegal), thereby causing the USA to lose the war. His reasoning was solid, and the analogy was well chosen.
The ruling was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio. That case had absolutely nothing to do with "conscientious objectors" so the idea that Schenck's case was overturned because the court found draft-dodging to be ok is just stupid. Rather the court in Brandenburg ruled that government cannot criminalize inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". This is a massively important distinction, and illustrated by Brandenburg itself. The case hinged around a group of white supremacists who, at a rally, made statements about wanting to "get revenge against n**gers and jews". Brandenburg - one of the organizers - was charged for advocating violence, and was sentenced to prison. The Supreme Court found that this was unconstitutional. For a crime to be committed it's not enough to just say "we need to get revenge on those n**gers"; rather you would have to say something akin to "Look, a n**ger! Go get some revenge boys!".
This does not, by the way, mean that all of the actions of the "conscious objectors" are automatically legal. Were you to stand outside of an induction center telling men to turn around, go home, and refuse to be drafted, you could very well be prosecuted. You've gone from abstractly advocating the elimination of the draft to actively encouraging people to immediately break the law. The fact that you (and others like you) continually refuse to acknowledge this distinction does not mean that it isn't real, or important.
Your disagreement with one of my points also does not invalidate my other points.
The rest of your points were sophomoric and not really worth engaging with. I got a laugh out of your misuse of the "fire" analogy and figured I would point it out.
That, in general, free speech doesn't not exempt you from consequences
Again, sophomoric left-wing authoritarian talking point, memorized by the mindless to reinforce their preexisting desires. All of the examples you've provided for this claim hinge on government enforcement, and they are soundly refuted by the case law I've quoted.
If you acknowledged that you were wrong about the legal aspects and then, like many of your fellow authoritarians, moved on to insist that "consequences" could just mean people kicking the shit out of you (#punchanazi) you would be closer truth in the sense that yes, if you say unpopular things you may get punched. But we have laws against that, and the person doing the punching needs to be locked up. It turns out that when you assault (or stalk, threaten, and harass) people whom you don't like, you are not free from the consequences of those actions either.
nor does it require any to listen to you.
No, certainly not. This is the first sane thing you've said. It's pe
Britain has promised to discontinue use of the Sun by 2025.
In this case I was referring not to arrest or censorship, but of being socially shunned, of having websites chose not to give a person a place to air their views.
I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
Congratulations on not being your grandmother; I'm not your grandmother either.
I'm guessing you actually own a few 3-way lamps and just don't know it -- the majority of table and floor lamps available for purchase have 3-way fixtures, but you can put a single-wattage bulb in them and won't notice anything out of the ordinary. At any rate, your use case isn't everyone's use case, and those whose use cases are different from yours probably aren't your grandmother.
You are old fashioned.
For a very small price you can get LED bulbs that can be toggled to dim at 100%, 75%, 50% and 25% of output by just switching them off and on. Works perfectly.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I use a single halogen lamp to light my living room. I tried replacing it by an LED lamp with a stated lumen rating that was the same as the halogen, but found my room darkened to the point where I found it hard to even read a book. In my estimation the LED only gave off around a quarter of the light of the halogen.
I'm all in favor of saving energy. Having said that, I'm not going to spend the rest of my life like a f*cking medieval peasant, sitting in the dark.
So you're saying it would be fine for me to come to your favorite sites to preach the beauty of interracial love, complete with vast quantities of multimedia visual aids? Great. Just let me grab some of my buds and fire up the special automated teaching assistants, and we'll get this party started.
Ok, I worked some time in my past with lighting professionally, mainly in Measurement of General Lighting Appliances.
So what is actually banned now: two additional types of high voltage halogen reflector Lamps. Does this mean you get now halogen lighting anymore?
No, you still get low voltage (12 V usually) lamps with and without integrated reflector. These might be subject of another ban in the future, but chances are that they will stay with us in the future.
First of, if anyone has additional questions, feel free to get in touch, I will try to answer to the best of my knowledge.
I'll try to give some insight to the random topics I saw here.
Why banning this lamps?
You can read the exact parts here https://ec.europa.eu/energy/si...
The EU started off with banning most of the Halogen Incandescent used with mains voltage (eg. 230 V or 110 V). The Low Voltage Variants are not banned by this. The mains voltage lamps are practical but shit. The tungsten filament is thinner and longer compared to the low voltage variants and not as sturdy, which means that they have a lower colour temperature, worse optical characteristics, shortend lifetime and even worse efficacy.
Some basics on lighting:
What we perceive as light is electromagnetic radiation with a general wavelength range of 380 nm (blue) to 780 nm (red). We do not have a uniform distribution of the sensitivity. In measurement a fixed distribution is used to describe this sensitivity (v(lamda)), with Peak sensitivity at 555 nm (green).
Mixing light of several different bandwidths then gives the Impression of Colour, there are several systems for describing colours, in lighting the most common used is the CIE "triangle"/"horseshoe".
In general Lighting CCT (Correlated color temperature) is used to describe shades of white. When using Incandescent Lamps this is the actual temperature of the filament, with tungsten being one of the metals that can withstand 3000 K for a prolonged period. As Fluorescent Lamps / LED / HID Lamps use other methods for light generation a Correlated Colour Temperature is used. This takes the emitted spectrum of a lightsource and converts it into a value that has some resemblance of a Colour Temperature, it is still not the actual Colour Temperature.
Commonly this is coupled with a value called CRI (Colour Rendering Index) which compared the given spectrum to either an synthetic incandescent or daylight spectrum. So by default Incandescent lamps should have a CRI of 100.
White LEDs:
There are no white LEDs. The most common construction today is a blue LED coated with phosphors which convert the blue light to longer wavelengths, similar to a fluorescent lamp. Close to all "white" LED Lamps has a blue peak at about 450 nm, their CCT / CRI depend on the coating used, sometimes in COBs (Chip on Board) red LEDs are added to boost the CRI.
Blue Light Hazard:
Light/Radiation is not good for eyes, but dosage makes poison. Modern Incandescent Lamps/Fluorescent/HID Lamps have effective UV Block Coating and blue light is generated there in low dosage by design, but especially Fluorescent and HID might be blue light hazard. LEDs in general lighting mess with us on several levels. Their peak at 450 nm messes with our chronobiology and the the blue light causes more cell damage. Incandescent Lamps and daylight have a more uniform distributed spectrum and our bodies were designed for latter. So nothing compares actually to daylight and it is far from understood what light controls in our body (e.g. we now know about 12 different functional spectra in our organism, from seeing, to chronobiology, to cell regeneration).
Lifetime:
In general the lifetime of a LED is superior, but LED Lamps used on mains are complicated beasts and have a lot more components which might die long before the LEDs. Also LEDs don't like to be driven outside their designed range. They will degrade fast when
With the global CO2 problems this would be the same 'freedom' as driving on the left side 'just because it's freedom of choice'.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Yeah, somehow the people with the most power never seem to be responsible.
It only makes sense, no?
This; "consumer savings of up to 112 pound ($144) a year from the switchover because LEDs last much longer than halogens and use far less power", means the market will drive out most halogens on its own. A legislative ban will probably end up making things worse.
I replaced almost every bulb in my house a couple of years ago and haven't had a single one go out since. Of course, now that I've said this, I'll probably get home to find all but one have exploded.
What is wrong with using two bulbs and two switches, and not having to carry an inventory of spares for these peculiarities?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Must be an American thing, like lightbulbs with a screw fitting instead of a bayonet fitting - which I'd never seen before my mid-20s.
Odd; the European E14 base sure looks like it has a screw fitting.
I'm not sure when using and selling E14 and E28 lamps became more common. There was a major change of the electrical wiring codes in the different countries of the country between about 1995 and 2000 which caused no end of uncertainty for me as I was trying to figure out if I had to hire an electrician to install a shower, or if I could (legally) do the job myself. (I finally figured out that if I'd been in England, no, I had to get a sparky to do it; but in Scotland I could do it but had to use heavier cables than in England, for the same power of shower. So I did it.). At the same time I was trying to inventory-down all the various light fittings in the house so I only needed to keep two types of lamp for spare - 1m tube fluorescents, or B28 (bayonet) 150W equivalent CFLs for other rooms than the kitchen. But very annoyingly the desk anglepoise lamp which I really liked had an E28 (screw, otherwise "Large Edison Screw", LES) fitting and try as I might, I couldn't find a fitting to convert that to B28. Real annoyance. Then I got married, and within a year I had about a dozen different sizes of lamp in my "light bulb" box.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"