Incandescent Light Bulbs to Start Being Phased Out in 2012

[Al68]

For some reason I note people dislike the government saying "don't use incandescent light bulbs", but how would they react to a private company saying this? What if all the private companies boycotted incandescents and sold only the new variety?
You end up in an identical situation, the only difference is who made the decision and what you could do about it.

That's not even an analogous situtation, much less an identical one, for two major reasons:

1. The first situation involves the use of force by government against peaceful citizens. The second does not involve the use of force.

2. Your second situation is just logically impossible. You have provided no reason whatsoever that a product could be legal, in demand, and profitable, but nobody willing to sell it. That simply doesn't happen.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Evo, Mu naught said that he thinks the mercury in CFL bulbs is a health risk. I asked for a source on that. You said that it's well known. I know that mercury is poisonous, but everything's poisonous if you ingest enough of it. There's not a lot of mercury in these bulbs, so I want to know if it is in fact true that CFL bulbs, if they break in your house, pose a health risk

 

[Vanadium 50]

The EPA has http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html" . As you can see, there are more steps than with a broken incandescent, but it does not involve hazmat teams.

 

[Al68]

I will take your word for it that you somehow have never heard that mercury is poisonous.

When was that said?

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/consumerinfo.htm

According to that source, a CFL bulb has less than 1/100th the mercury of a (formerly common) household mercury thermometer. Basically not a significant health risk from the occasional broken bulb.

 

[Al68]

The EPA has http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html" . As you can see, there are more steps than with a broken incandescent, but it does not involve hazmat teams.

LOL. I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that one has been called to the scene before anyway.

 

[BobG]

I believe Bob was arguing against you. Which of his points do you agree with?

No. Whenever the government tries to regulate something like this, there's problems.

Sometimes they're small and the overall program works as in low flush toilets. They were mandated in Canada before the US and Canadians used to come to the US to buy full flush toilets. Once the US restricted full flush toilets, everyone eventually had to accept them in spite of complaints about how they worked (sometimes you had to flush twice). I think most people today would wonder why low flush toilets were ever an issue. With a standard regulation, you set an even playing field and manufacturers started finding ways to make better performing flush toilets. Government regulation and a free market response. (That wouldn't support Barwick's point).

Sometimes it just doesn't work as in setting minimum fuel efficiency for passenger cars. It's infeasible to ban trucks and to set fuel efficiency standards that would prevent trucks from performing the role they have to fill. Since there had to be some exemptions, everyone suddenly decided they needed a truck - especially if their truck had 9 seats and a DVD player to keep the kids entertained. Now the fuel efficient cars just get run over by SUVs. (That would support Barwick's point.)

I think taking incandescents off the market will definitely cause more problems than even your average government program. (Which does support Barwick's point.)

Breaking one CFL bulb in your home isn't a problem. Throwing all of the CFLs in a city of a few hundred thousand into a landfill turns the landfill into a toxic waste dump. Of course, throwing all of the used batteries from a city of a few hundred thousand into a landfill also turns the landfill into a toxic waste dump, so perhaps tossing CFLs in on top of them isn't such a big deal (yes, used batteries are toxic waste, too, and you shouldn't be tossing them into your regular trash).

Plus, there has to be exemptions since CFLs can't replace incandescents in every situation. The regulations open up an entire new market combining an array of 5 or 6 40 Watt incandescent light bulbs into a very tastefully designed floor lamp or very nicely designed ceiling track lighting with 7, 8, or 10 40 Watt incandescent bulbs.

Taking incandescents off the market will also spur development of better halogen bulbs and lamps. It will also spur development of cheaper LED lighting (I personally like this option for the long term - I won't even buy a flashlight that uses incandescents any more).

Whether the overall program works long term or not is something to be determined. It probably will eventually, but banning incandescents before there's an effective replacement just seems like a real PITA for consumers.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It doesn't make sense to me unless they're going to ban candles too. I have a light on my door step that is difficult to replace. A few years ago I put a flourescent in there. I wasn't so much concerned about the cost or the energy savings, I just wanted a bulb I wouldn't have to replace so often. However, it burned out in a few days. I took it back to the store and they replaced it for me but the second one burned out too and I just asked for my money back. Why would a flourescent bulb burn out where an incandescent bulb is ok? It's a 40 watt bulb and I think the flourescent was 11 or 12 watts.

 

[Jack21222]

It doesn't make sense to me unless they're going to ban candles too.

Huh? Can you explain, please?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Taking incandescents off the market will also spur development of better halogen bulbs and lamps.

But halogens are incandescents.

Philips makes a wonderful halogen bulb - the halogen bulb is inside a second, outer, gas bulb. What are the problems with halogens? They use non-standard sockets, and once you touch the glass, the bulb is ruined. This solves both problems at once.

 

[CAC1001]

(yes, used batteries are toxic waste, too, and you shouldn't be tossing them into your regular trash).

I have read that a lot of recycling is actually a sham as they often will just dump the recyclables in with garbage and then use special machines to separate everything later on; this is also because a lot of times people will put the wrong products into the wrong recycling bins, so the machines are needed. Don't know if they do this with batteries however.

 

[Barwick]

By that definition, the United States isn't a free society. I used to dislike that thought, but I'm kinda used to it now.

You're right. By the Constitution it's about a 98% free society. By current implementation where they ignore the Constitution and put a gun to people's heads to pay for things like Socialist Security, and the banning of light bulbs, it's probably closer to about a 65% free society.

Sad thing is, literally every other nation on the planet is nearly as bad or worse. I think a few random small countries may top out at like 70% on a scale put out every year (I think by the Heritage Foundation, I'm not sure).

 

[Barwick]

Plus, there has to be exemptions since CFLs can't replace incandescents in every situation. The regulations open up an entire new market combining an array of 5 or 6 40 Watt incandescent light bulbs into a very tastefully designed floor lamp or very nicely designed ceiling track lighting with 7, 8, or 10 40 Watt incandescent bulbs.

You mean like what happened when they put politicians in our showers?

http://mises.org/daily/2007

I hope that's the right article, I can't get to the site right now, but basically when they restricted shower heads to an incredibly low flow rate (ever take a shower in an old house, where you have water pressure that'll actually blow all that shampoo right out of your hair?), people got pissed, and some companies skirted the absurd law by making a shower head with 3 heads, so it'll flow the same amount of water you used to have, and you can leave the shower actually feeling like you got clean again.

 

[Evo]

Breathing mercury results in a number of nervous system and lung problems.

Here are some quotes from the paper, if you don't wish to read the whole thing. The amount of mercury released from a single CFL exceeds the "safe" levels for many state EPAs, as in the one for Maine I posted yesterday

The presence of mercury in CFLs
(and in more traditional, linear fluorescent
light tubes) raises several risk issues.
Workers may be exposed to mercury when
manufacturing, transporting, installing, recycling
or disposing of fluorescent lights. While
no mercury is released during normal operation,
consumers can be exposed to mercury if
a fluorescent tube or CFL is broken. And as
the number of fluorescent lights in use grows,
so does the amount of mercury that can be accidentally
released in homes and can enter the
waste stream.

Mercury vapor, which is
readily dispersed in air and absorbed through
the lungs, is the most immediate health
concern. But liquid mercury, especially if it
is absorbed into a carpet or an upholstered
surface, can remain in place and vaporize
over time, contributing to ongoing indoor
exposure.

Can a Broken CFL Create a Household
Health Hazard?
CFLs, like other light bulbs, tend to be fragile;
most designs use relatively unprotected, thin
glass tubes. Given normal human foibles,
some CFLs will be broken. People may drop
a CFL or apply too much force when
installing or removing it. Lamps occasionally
get knocked over, especially in homes
with children and pets. And when a CFL’s
useful life is over and it is thrown away, it
may get broken in the trash before it even
leaves the house.
The mercury in a broken CFL can escape and
contaminate the site of the breakage. Most
of the mercury in a CFL is in vapor form;
some may be adsorbed onto surfaces inside
the lamp, and a small amount may exist as
tiny liquid droplets.

http://mpp.cclearn.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/final_shedding_light_all.pdf

 

[JaredJames]

1. The first situation involves the use of force by government against peaceful citizens. The second does not involve the use of force.

Either way, the public would be forced to purchase the new product, whether via the government or privately. They key here is that the government aren't going around houses forcing people to change them or else. They are simply preventing the sale by manufacturers. If people are that concerned, why don't they just go out and buy as many incandescents as they can? If you're going to need them in the future, why not just get them all now? Same cost there or there abouts.
[QUOTE/]2. Your second situation is just logically impossible. You have provided no reason whatsoever that a product could be legal, in demand, and profitable, but nobody willing to sell it. That simply doesn't happen.[/QUOTE]

Is it really? No reason whatsoever?

Perhaps there's a more profitable/new/better product they want to push, to do this they stop selling the old one?

For some reason here though, people don't care that the new bulbs could save energy, all people care about is that the government want them to buy them. Damn government trying to save a bit of energy, what are they thinking?

People are just being stubborn. "I don't care about efficiency, becaues the government is telling me to buy them I don't want to."

Be honest, if all the companies only sold CFL's as of tomorrow, by their own choice, what would you all say then?
This is what the effect will be once this regulation kicks in. The only difference is who's causing it.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Huh? Can you explain, please?

Lumen for lumen, candles create far more greenhouse gasses than incandescent bulbs. So why does the govt go after one and not the other? The powerful candle industry lobby.

 

[lisab]

In the future, instead of getting fantastic, mind-blowing-brilliant ideas in a sudden flash, people will begin to get dim, vague notions which will strengthen slowly over time. Patience will be required to wait on ideas to build up a bit. Sure, eventually, ideas will be be as bright as they used to be, but they will never have that same wonderful A-HA! feeling.

I think I'm going to miss the old days.

 

[JaredJames]

Fair play lisab, that's brilliant!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

In the future, instead of getting fantastic, mind-blowing-brilliant ideas in a sudden flash, people will begin to get dim, vague notions which will strengthen slowly over time.

I don't get it. Oh!

 

[Kurdt]

Don't worry. We'll all be using LED natural lights soon enough.

 

[mheslep]

Not entirely 100% the way the libertarian-minded would prefer, but still very close.

Close? I suggest practically every aspect of modern life is considered fair game for restriction and regulation, as the would be restricters and regulators can (and do) make arguments that your every action impacts them through impacts on the environment, national security, etc, the argument having grown so fantastic now that it is a thin veil for totalitarian intentions. I suppose this is an easy position to take if one sees many of his fellow citizens as as misguided "bitter" rubes requiring control by their betters as otherwise "http://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/barack-obama-bitter-pennsylvanians-cling-to-guns-or-religion/" "

 

[BobG]

You mean like what happened when they put politicians in our showers?

http://mises.org/daily/2007

I hope that's the right article, I can't get to the site right now, but basically when they restricted shower heads to an incredibly low flow rate (ever take a shower in an old house, where you have water pressure that'll actually blow all that shampoo right out of your hair?), people got pissed, and some companies skirted the absurd law by making a shower head with 3 heads, so it'll flow the same amount of water you used to have, and you can leave the shower actually feeling like you got clean again.

They missed the boat by limiting the flow of shower heads. The real water waste occurs when people take longer showers. Instead of limiting the flow of water, they should have limited the capacity of water heaters and/or limited the temperature of water heater.

Limiting the temperature means people will have to limit how much cold water is mixed in the shower flow, reducing overall flow. Limiting the capacity limits how long a person(s) can shower before the hot water is gone, making further showering rather undesirable.

Or, if they really wanted to save water, they could have banned outdoor water outlets and sprinkler systems. People could only grow grass, trees, and flowers in their yard if they lived in a region where grass, trees, and flowers naturally grew.

Likewise, if legislators really want to save energy on lighting, they should implement double-dog daylight savings time for the summer. Daylight savings time works well in the Spring and Fall, but a lot of daylight is wasted before anyone is up to enjoy them. Double dog daylight savings time for the Summer months would eliminate an hour of artificial lighting time in the evening.

 

[Jack21222]

Lumen for lumen, candles create far more greenhouse gasses than incandescent bulbs. So why does the govt go after one and not the other? The powerful candle industry lobby.

How many people do you know use candles to light their house?

My mother uses candles all the time, but not to light the room like a light bulb. She does it for the scent and a faint light. Therefore, "lumen for lumen" is a terrible way to compare the two.

 

[Evo]

How many people do you know use candles to light their house?

My mother uses candles all the time, but not to light the room like a light bulb. She does it for the scent and a faint light. Therefore, "lumen for lumen" is a terrible way to compare the two.

jimmy was making a joke.

 

[CAC1001]

They missed the boat by limiting the flow of shower heads. The real water waste occurs when people take longer showers. Instead of limiting the flow of water, they should have limited the capacity of water heaters and/or limited the temperature of water heater.

Limiting the temperature means people will have to limit how much cold water is mixed in the shower flow, reducing overall flow. Limiting the capacity limits how long a person(s) can shower before the hot water is gone, making further showering rather undesirable.

Or, if they really wanted to save water, they could have banned outdoor water outlets and sprinkler systems. People could only grow grass, trees, and flowers in their yard if they lived in a region where grass, trees, and flowers naturally grew.

Likewise, if legislators really want to save energy on lighting, they should implement double-dog daylight savings time for the summer. Daylight savings time works well in the Spring and Fall, but a lot of daylight is wasted before anyone is up to enjoy them. Double dog daylight savings time for the Summer months would eliminate an hour of artificial lighting time in the evening.

They had better NOT start messing with my hot water heater

 

[CAC1001]

Either way, the public would be forced to purchase the new product, whether via the government or privately. They key here is that the government aren't going around houses forcing people to change them or else. They are simply preventing the sale by manufacturers.

Irregardless, they are preventing the sale of a product many want.

If people are that concerned, why don't they just go out and buy as many incandescents as they can? If you're going to need them in the future, why not just get them all now? Same cost there or there abouts.

I don't have the $$$ to stock up on a supply of incandescents to last for years, nor the room.

Is it really? No reason whatsoever?

Perhaps there's a more profitable/new/better product they want to push, to do this they stop selling the old one?

No company does that. What they might do is introduce the more profitable/new/better product and see how it sells. That doesn't mean people are going to want it.

For some reason here though, people don't care that the new bulbs could save energy,

Yes, could is a key word.

all people care about is that the government want them to buy them. Damn government trying to save a bit of energy, what are they thinking?

Yes, who are the government to tell us what to buy? It really is none of their business. Especially when the alternative product (s) has issues many don't like.

As mentioned by mheslep, there's a fine line here, because any regulation can be justified if you argue it affects the environment, national security, etc...

People are just being stubborn. "I don't care about efficiency, becaues the government is telling me to buy them I don't want to."

No they are not. People don't want to have to buy the government-mandated alternatives because they have a lot of issues people don't like (time to light up, lack of heat, ambience, cost, etc...).

Be honest, if all the companies only sold CFL's as of tomorrow, by their own choice, what would you all say then?
This is what the effect will be once this regulation kicks in. The only difference is who's causing it.

You're wrong. Because if all the companies only sold CFLs as of tomorrow, someone would start a company making incandescents, and would likely find a large enough demand that the company would be profitable and become sizeable pretty quickly.

With the regulation, it becomes illegal for companies to make incandescents anymore (unless maybe someone tries doing what that guy in Europe did, re-designating them as heaters).

 

[WhoWee]

They had better NOT start messing with my hot water heater

Don't take any chances - get a big gas fired on-demand water heater. I like the commercial/car wash models for whole house applications.

 

[Al68]

Either way, the public would be forced to purchase the new product, whether via the government or privately.

No. Your second scenario is identical to the actual scenario in reality over the last 100 years, ie people are free to buy and sell incandescent bulbs as they please. The result of not using force is that they will be sold.

Seriously, your second "scenario" is like saying "what if everyone just inexplicably decided to stop selling alcohol even though it's completely legal?", and claiming that's identical to prohibition. First, it wouldn't happen, and second, it wouldn't be the same situation even if it did.

Be honest, if all the companies only sold CFL's as of tomorrow, by their own choice, what would you all say then?

I would personally start an incandescent bulb business to sell them to everyone in the U.S. who wanted one. Do you really think every business in the country would just sit back and let me have 100% of the market share? How rich would I get if everyone else just inexplicably declined to sell them, so that I had a de facto monopoly? How inexplicable would it be that out of 300 million people, not a single one (besides me) is interested in billions of dollars?

This is what the effect will be once this regulation kicks in. The only difference is who's causing it.

No, the effect of not using force is that they will be sold. And the difference is, I will become a billionaire! And far less important, now that I think about it, is that everyone will be free to buy incandescent bulbs.

Seriously, the following two things are mutually contradictory, as evidenced by both simple logic and the fact that they have never happened in the history of the human race:

1. A product is in demand and profitable and no force is used to prevent its manufacture or sale.
2. The product is not being sold.

 

[Evo]

So, is everyone that is against the ban against the environmentalists that pushed this legislation to save the planet as part of a popular cause back then? I'm really curious if on one hand you support that movement, as long as it doesn't interfere with you personally, or if it is simply something that has never concerned you.

There are supposed to be tremendous benefits, not only to the planet, but if you pay electric bills, you're supposed to see a reduction in your bills, but I don't see anyone addressing the benefits. This makes me really curious.

 

[Al68]

So, is everyone that is against the ban against the environmentalists that pushed this legislation to save the planet as part of a popular cause back then? I'm really curious if on one hand you support that movement, as long as it doesn't interfere with you personally.

I want to know if everyone who favors the ban is against the environmentalists who have been trying to save the planet by reducing mercury use, by opposing this ban. Do you support the movement against putting more mercury in little childrens' homes, as long as it doesn't interfere with you personally by preventing you from saving money on your electric bill to buy more Big Macs?

 

[Jack21222]

jimmy was making a joke.

I should hope so. I thought that might have been the case, but you never know around here.

 

[Evo]

I want to know if everyone who favors the ban is against the environmentalists who have been trying to save the planet by reducing mercury use, by opposing this ban. Do you support the movement against putting more mercury in little childrens' homes, as long as it doesn't interfere with you personally by preventing you from saving money on your electric bill to buy more Big Macs?

Did you know that you don't have to buy CFL's, so mercury isn't an issue?

 

[CAC1001]

So, is everyone that is against the ban against the environmentalists that pushed this legislation to save the planet as part of a popular cause back then?

Well I do not like environmentalists that want to ram new forms of anything down my throat under the guise of "saving the planet." These are the people who want us all to eat soy and have cattle banned due to their methane emissions, thus causing (supposedly) global climate change.

I'm really curious if on one hand you support that movement, as long as it doesn't interfere with you personally, or if it is simply something that has never concerned you.

I support what you could call reasonable environmentalism, as the movement can get taken to an extreme to justify regulation of everything and anything (not too long ago the EPA considered regulating water like it is attempting to CO2 emissions b/c water is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2!).

There are supposed to be tremendous benefits, not only to the planet, but if you pay electric bills, you're supposed to see a reduction in your bills, but I don't see anyone addressing the benefits. This makes me really curious.

If these benefits are so good, then there wouldn't be any need for the government to ban incandescents, they'll go away on their own, via market forces. People will buy the superior product.

People always buy the superior product that they can afford, the problem is just that what the people consider superior is not always what the government does. A random person might consider a Chevrolet Tahoe superior to a Toyota Camry because it is roomier, bigger, higher up, etc...they can afford it, so they don't mind the extra cost or the extra fuel costs.

To a bureaucrat who only measures which vehicle is "better" by fuel efficiency, however, the people are purchasing the "worse" vehicle, ignoring the "benefits" of the smaller vehicle. That's because the people like the benefits of the bigger vehicle over the benefits of the smaller vehicle.

Incandescents I see as the same. People don't purchase a literally worse product. It's that people prefer the benefits of the incandescents over the benefits of the alternatives right now. According to bureaucrats though, the people are buying the "worse" product, so they need to be forced to buy the more "beneficial" product.

 

[Evo]

BTW, I'm not for the ban. As I said previously, I hate CFL's I have some for the ceiling fans because they are a pain to replace and I wanted something that wouldn't need to be replaced for several years. I might buy halogen lights, but I only use 60 watt lights and they won't be banned for several years, I'll wait to see what technology is around, or if there is still a ban then.

I made the mistake of replacing my outdoor lights for the same reasons and had to take them out, I didn't realize they don't work in sub freezing temperatures. After 20 minutes of warming, you have light equivalent to a matchstick. No good when you drive up to the house and the lights don't turn on.

 

[russ_watters]

This is a complicated problem. I saw little bits of pros and cons of CFs in the first few pages, but not a full list and some arguments that were a little weak on logic for and against. I think it is important to deal with the full list to get a clear picture of just how unclear the issue is. I'll try to present both sides (note: when I moved into my house 4 years ago, I replaced every incandescent with a CF - about 40 of them):

The pros for CFs over incandescents, with some explanation, are:
1. Lower energy usage for the same light (typically about 1/5).
2. Less heat output, which causes a secondary effect of reducing heating and cooling energy and cost. I've heard the lower heat output being implied as a negative for cool climates, but it isn't, it just isn't as much of a positive. Electric resistance heating is typically the most expensive common way to make heat and the power company burns more fuel to make the electricity to make the heat than you would burning the fuel to make heat. Won't damage fixtures or burn you like an incandescent might.
3. Economic stimulus.

Cons of CFs vs Incandescents.
1. Poorer quality light. Someone earler said they produce better light - I'd never heard that before and the light quality is a very commonly cited issue.
2. Slow starting. This is not as big of a problem with newer or more expensive lamps.
3. High initial cost.
4. Lower reliability. I've replaced about 20% of the lamps in my house over the past few years, most in covered ceiling fixtures. They also tend to fail in recessed downlights or anything else that traps heat. I've seen some that are labeled to warn against use in enclosed fixtures, but regardless, I consider this a pretty major issue that really should be addressed by manufacturers.
5. No standard shape or size. This can cause mechanical incompatibility issues with existing fixtures.
6. Hazardous materials in the lamp.
7. Temperature sensitivity makes them problematic to use outside (this is related to the reliability issue).

Greg is correct about the issue regarding longer usage reducing the energy savings. It isn't just the psychology of people caring less about turning them off and being less vigilant (I do it noticeabley - I'm aware of it, yet I still do it). The fact that many start slowly provides a genuine benefit for leaving them on when temporarily leaving a room.

The long lists of both pros and cons make the equation for using them a little bit more complicated than it often appears at first glance. This is not an issue of a clearly better product replacing an outdated product. I do own them mostly for the economic benefit, but the cons annoy me and I've never done a payback calculation that takes into account the high early failure rate.

It was suggested that this issue is similar to the banning of CFCs in the '90s. It's not, and the differences I think show why this ban is a bad idea. Though the replacements for CFCs are generally inferior to the CFCs they replaced, CFCs have a direct impact on the ozone layer and eliminating them was the only known way to fix the problem. The same is not true of CF lamps. CF lamps have a direct impact on reducing stress on our generation system and distribution grid, but there are other ways to deal with that issue, such as upgrading the grid or finding other ways to conserve. If CO2 is your concern, incandescent lamps have only a secondary effect on that, as the choice of how we generate power has the primary impact. The obvious other way around that issue is to change our way of generating power to one that doesn't create CO2.

So because of the lack of clear-cut need to eliminate incandescent bulbs, I don't think the government should be legislating about it. This ban is contrary to the concept of a free society.

 

[lisab]

Good points, Russ. I agree about the quality issue. I found a review on CF lamps (from 2007):

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/reviews/news/4215199