Incandescent Light Bulbs to Start Being Phased Out in 2012

[russ_watters]

That article says the newer CF lamps - to their surprise (and mine) - produced better light than their control incandescent. So perhaps that's an obsolete con. In either case, I never personally considered it a significant issue, but I've never been that sensitive to that sort of thing.

The wiki lists several others that I'd forgotten. Notably:
1. Wattage inflation. Noted in the article and by people in the thread, the advertised wattage equivalent to incandescent is virtually always inaccurate.
2. Most will not work in dimming fixtures and/or require special dimmers.
3. Low power factor (messes with the power quality in the building).
4. Some make noise - that's related to the reliability issue. It is usually a faulty ballast that hums.
5. Light output decays with age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp

 

[CAC1001]

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.

I've read some towns and cities have discovered a similar problem with using CFLs in traffic lighs, in that during the winter, the old incandescents would melt the snow and ice on the lights, whereas the CFLs do not, so the lights freeze over and no one can see them.

 

[edward]

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.

I see a lot of new houses with low flow heads in the shower. Adjacent to the shower is a garden tub that looks like it would hold a zillion gallons of water. The pump in the tubs and the new wine cooler or mini fridge in the den offset any savings from using CFL's

 

[Vanadium 50]

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."

Baloney.

Sorry, but there's no better word for it.

My house has regular fluorescents, compact fluorescents, halogens and incandescents. My main lighting is fluorescent, but there are some areas where fluorescent lighting doesn't work very well. For example, my garage door opener - it's cold, the bright time is short, you have an immediate need for all the light, and there are a lot of vibrations. It's not being stubborn: I started changing my lighting 11 years ago.

So I don't think it's right that the government somehow knows better than I do which technology works best, and it's certainly not right that it's stubbornness that's driving my decisions. (I am stubborn, but it's not driving my decisions!)

 

[G037H3]

fluorescent lights give me headaches, and I can't be the only one -_-

Neon is the future then I suppose? aha

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

jimmy was making a joke.

Half in jest, totally in earnest.

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

I don't know how many people I know use candles to light their house. However, I assume that most, but not all people who use candles, use them to light something. Apparently, even your mother does. I shudder to think what Clinton does with them.

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.

Your mother creates more greenhouse gas with those candles than I do with my incandescent bulbs.

Therefore, "lumen for lumen" is a terrible way to compare the two.

Candles produce more greenhouse gas than incandescent bulbs even when a single bulb is replaced by two candles. In that case, the lumens of the candles is far below that of the bulb.

Of course, the govt is not going after candles, they would look as ridiculous to everybody as they do to me for banning incandescents. You can't save energy with this kind of legislation. Whatever gets 'saved', will be used for some other purpose. The kind of legislation that would reduce energy use would be something like increased taxes on all forms of energy. I'm against that too, but at least it would work. If this legistlation is not totalitarian, then what on Earth is?

 

[Borek]

4. Some make noise - that's related to the reliability issue. It is usually a faulty ballast that hums.

And some emit flashes for hours after they have been switched off. I have one such over a dinner table, it is located in such a place that it is on form most of the time, as it provides enough light to make it possible to navigate through half of the house without switching anything else on. That's the last light I switch off when going up to our bedroom. If the night is long and dark (nothing unusual in late autumn or winter), and if I have to get down for some reason (rarely, but it happens), very weak flashes can be seen even 4 hours after switching the lamp off.

I guess switching hot and ground wires may help, but I am too lazy to check.

 

[Jack21222]

Half in jest, totally in earnest.


I don't know how many people I know use candles to light their house. However, I assume that most, but not all people who use candles, use them to light something. Apparently, even your mother does. I shudder to think what Clinton does with them.


Your mother creates more greenhouse gas with those candles than I do with my incandescent bulbs.



Candles produce more greenhouse gas than incandescent bulbs even when a single bulb is replaced by two candles. In that case, the lumens of the candles is far below that of the bulb.

Of course, the govt is not going after candles, they would look as ridiculous to everybody as they do to me for banning incandescents. You can't save energy with this kind of legislation. Whatever gets 'saved', will be used for some other purpose. The kind of legislation that would reduce energy use would be something like increased taxes on all forms of energy. I'm against that too, but at least it would work. If this legistlation is not totalitarian, then what on Earth is?

Candles are used for a totally different purpose than a light bulb. I'm sure my television uses more electricity lumen for lumen than a light bulb, too, but I seriously don't understand your point.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I seriously don't understand your point.

This.

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

 

[Barwick]

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.

Read what you said here carefully a few times over. Read it out loud (not at work, let's everyone think you're loony). Then think to yourself how crazy those two sentences sound. It's like saying "This zoning book isn't a book of restrictions... it's a book of permissions!" Same thing.

In this case, government is pointing a proverbial gun at manufacturers to prevent the sale of these products. Don't like the gun analogy? Watch what happens if those companies say "we're going to sell them anyway":
1) They will first be threatened with a fine.
2) Then fined.
3) If they refuse to pay that fine, they will be taken to court.
4) Court will rule on a judgment against them.
5) The judgment will seize a portion of their assets.
6) If their assets are physical (let's say gold, or machinery) and they refuse to hand over their assets, the government will send in agents (law enforcement officers) to demand the assets are turned over.
7) If they are not turned over, those agents will either seize the assets by force (with guns), or will come back at night and put a padlock on the door.
8) If the owner comes in and cuts the lock, eventually those agents will physically block entry to the place of business for anyone, including the owners, under threat of physical force (again, a gun).

That is what government does.

Now ask yourself, can ANYONE else do that besides the government? No. But who else acts that way sometimes? Criminals.

Specifically, the *Mafia*. They determine you owe them something because they say so, and will enforce their decision by any means required, ultimately at the barrel of a gun if necessary.

Only difference between the Government and the Mafia is that you get a "chance" to elect them with your 1 vote out of 100,000,000 every few years. Supposedly the Constitution protects us from abuses of that power, but obviously not (judging by the arguments put forth by legitimately good people in favor of this ban).

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."

If I walked into your house for no apparent reason, pointed a gun at you, and told you that you *have* to go and eat that freshly baked cake that just came out of the oven 15 minutes ago (mmm... warm cake fresh out of the oven... you were planning on eating anyway), would you feel perfectly fine just sitting there eating that cake (that you wanted to eat anyhow), as I sit there pointing the gun at your head until you're done?

People don't like to be forced. Especially when they're sitting there wondering "Why are they doing this? What ELSE are they going to use that gun for in the future?" Even if people are willing to comply with one thing, they may not be willing to in the future with other things. But if the "majority" thinks they have to, then that makes it ok? Democracy is tyranny of the masses.

 

[Barwick]

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.

Put it this way. I'm all for responsible environmentalism (don't dump trash in public, don't drop toxic waste in water streams, don't spew smog causing pollutants into the air, and screw CO2 it's not a pollutant...)

In short: I'm against Government use of force unless absolutely necessary (someone stole something, use force to stop them. Similarly, settling disputes between parties, etc). There's very few things it's necessary for (and they're all spelled out in the US Constitution so I don't have to quote them here, I'll just reference).

Here's an example:
My neighbor has about 35 dead ash trees in his less than 1 acre back yard. Routinely they fall into my yard, and I have to chop them up and burn them in the fire pit. We live in a 100,000 person suburb of Detroit, if this gives you an idea of how big this place actually is, it ain't exactly the sticks.

I mentioned to people about how this happens, just in conversation, and they say "Why don't you call the city, they'll come and make your neighbor cut the trees down!" To which I reply "I'd rather chew on glass than have the city force my neighbor to do something on his own private property". If I wanted him to cut them down, I would talk to him myself (and I have, and he's in process of doing so, and I'm helping him with it). I'm not going to force him to do it all at once, and if he doesn't do it at all, then I'd just do it myself for the ones that are falling into my yard.

So, I guess to answer your question, to me it's not a "this affects me", it's a matter of principle. I personally kinda like the swirley-bulbs, if they're the right price and use less energy, great. But I'd rather chew on broken glass than have Government mandate that everyone buy one.

 

[NeoDevin]

But I'd rather chew on broken glass than have Government mandate that everyone buy one.

Broken glass and mercury vapor?

 

[Al68]

Now ask yourself, can ANYONE else do that besides the government? No. But who else acts that way sometimes? Criminals.

Specifically, the *Mafia*.

Don't be so quick to compare the Mafia to power hungry politicians. There are many things politicians (Democrats) do that even the Mafia historically has had too much honor and integrity to do.

Passing a new law that applies retroactively comes to mind. Confiscating a large percentage of someone's private income comes to mind. Treating future potential collections from others as if it were already theirs to spend comes to mind. Treating any reduction in forceful collections as if it were a gift comes to mind. Etc, etc.

The self-rationalization required to justify, even glorify, the above (like many who read this just did) comes to mind. Oh, wait, the Mafia does that, too, I suppose.

 

[BobG]

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.

There's costs and benefits to everything a person does. The important criteria is whether the benefits outweigh the costs.

In the case of CFLs, they present no personal sacrifice on my part, provided I just toss them in the trash when they burn out.

Even if I act semi-responsibly and dispose of them properly, there's little sacrifice involved. http://www6.homedepot.com/ecooptions/pdf/CFL-RecyclingProgramRevised.pdf and I like visiting Home Depot.

I do still have a problem cleaning up and disposing of broken bulbs. Plus light covers might not fit over CFL bulbs, since they're bigger (of course, that means making a visit to Home Depot, so it's not a cloud without a silver lining). And I do want my bulbs covered, since I don't want to have to face the dilemma of broken bulbs any more than I possibly have to.

I just have a sneaking suspicion that most users will choose the option that requires no sacrifice at all and just toss the burnt out bulbs in the trash.

We're banning one type of bulb and the most common replacement bulb will be one that will probably be banned in the future. As far as which bulb is worse, I really couldn't say.

I'd also note that it isn't more energy efficient to leave a CFL light on when you leave the room unless you're only leaving the room for 5 seconds or less. It is more cost effective to leave the light on if you're only leaving the room for a few minutes, since turning any light bulb on and off reduces it's lifetime. The exact time where it's more efficient to leave the light on can vary depending on how much you pay for electricity vs how much you pay for the bulb, do you pay more for electricity during peak usage times, etc. The reduced wattage means you're wasting less electricity when you leave the light on, but the break even point is still probably no longer than 15 minutes, at most, and that would probably have to be real cheap electricity and a really high price for your bulb.

The leave the lights on argument makes only slightly more sense than the argument to downshift when approaching intersections to make your brakes last longer (and your transmission last shorter).

 

[CRGreathouse]

We're banning one type of bulb and the most common replacement bulb will be one that will probably be banned in the future. As far as which bulb is worse, I really couldn't say.

Do you mean in terms of mercury? My understanding, the last time I looked this up, was that incandescent light bulbs cause more mercury to get in the environment because they use more electricity, which is mostly produced via coal, the burning of which releases mercury into the air.

 

[Upisoft]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox"

In economics, the Jevons paradox, sometimes called the Jevons effect, is the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.

Would that happen again? After all it is attempt to reduce electric power consumption by increasing the efficiency of its usage...

 

[CRGreathouse]

Would that happen again? After all it is attempt to reduce electric power consumption by increasing the efficiency of its usage...

Short answer: No, consumption of electricity would probably not increase, but the electric savings would be less than naively predicted by reducing the energy used by lighting the appropriate percentage.

 

[BobG]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox"


Would that happen again? After all it is attempt to reduce electric power consumption by increasing the efficiency of its usage...

It wouldn't happen with light bulbs. But if using lower wattage light bulbs reduces the demand, and subsequently lowers the price, then more of it will be used for something else, raising the price until some new equilibrium is reached.

But you don't change light bulbs in a vacuum. There's a push for better energy efficiency in all your household devices - heater, hot water heater, stove, washer/dryer, etc. And, pushing for better energy efficiency in just about everything that uses energy is the only way to really attack the problem.

 

[Barwick]

Don't be so quick to compare the Mafia to power hungry politicians. There are many things politicians (Democrats) do that even the Mafia historically has had too much honor and integrity to do.

Passing a new law that applies retroactively comes to mind. Confiscating a large percentage of someone's private income comes to mind. Treating future potential collections from others as if it were already theirs to spend comes to mind. Treating any reduction in forceful collections as if it were a gift comes to mind. Etc, etc.

The self-rationalization required to justify, even glorify, the above (like many who read this just did) comes to mind. Oh, wait, the Mafia does that, too, I suppose.

Heh, that's hilarious...




But it's true.

Honestly, it's like one of those old jokes... "Don't say the Government is like the Mafia... that's insulting to the Mafia"

 

[loseyourname]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox"


Would that happen again? After all it is attempt to reduce electric power consumption by increasing the efficiency of its usage...

Energy demand reduction programs at the state level mostly have a pretty good track record of actually reducing energy usage.

This honestly seems like a bit of a stupid way to accomplish the goal. Just levy a punitive tax on energy consumption say, more than 25% over the average of all residences with occupancy and square footage within a certain range. Then again, I can see why the federal government doesn't do that, since they don't have the power because utilities are chartered and regulated by the states.

 

[CAC1001]

Just levy a punitive tax on energy consumption say, more than 25% over the average of all residences with occupancy and square footage within a certain range.

I am confused by your wording there, do you mean take the average energy usage of all residences with occupancy and square footage within a certain range for the residences being averaged, then apply a tax of 25% or higher...?

 

[russ_watters]

My parents just got their summer water bill and it had a $40 surcharge (about 1/3 of the bill) for exceeding a certain usage target, above the normal per-gallon charge.

Some places apparently have progressive rates (Danger mentioned it, iirc), but it is more typical for rates to be regressive (the higher the usage, the lower the rate).

 

[loseyourname]

I am confused by your wording there, do you mean take the average energy usage of all residences with occupancy and square footage within a certain range for the residences being averaged, then apply a tax of 25% or higher...?

Yes. Say you live in a 1,400 sq ft house with four occupants. The utility provider averages the usage of all such households. If your usage is more than 25% higher than the average, your excess usage is assessed a punitive tax.

The numbers are completely arbitrary, obviously, but this is the simplest and most effective way to curb demand. When the price goes up, demand goes down.

Then again, I suppose the reality is that most utilities, so far as I know, already set prices in this way anyway and people still gladly waste electricity and pay for it even though they don't have to. I have no idea how great a tax would need to be before people started to notice and care that their energy bill was so high.

 

[russ_watters]

Then again, I suppose the reality is that most utilities, so far as I know, already set prices in this way anyway and people still gladly waste electricity and pay for it even though they don't have to. I have no idea how great a tax would need to be before people started to notice and care that their energy bill was so high.

In most places, residential rates are a flat rate per kWh. Commercially, rates are tied to demand, since demand is what determines how many power plants you need. The rates work like this:

-You pay a certain fixed rate per kW peak demand (the most kWh you use in an hour in a month).
-You pay for blocks of kWh at progressively decreasing rates. The size of those blocks is tied to your demand. Ie, 80 hours at a 10 kW billing demand means 800 kWh in a block at the first rate tier. 80 hours at 20 kWh is 1600 kWh. This method provides an additional incentive for reducing demand by making a flatter usage profile cost less.

 

[Barwick]

Energy demand reduction programs at the state level mostly have a pretty good track record of actually reducing energy usage.

This honestly seems like a bit of a stupid way to accomplish the goal. Just levy a punitive tax on energy consumption say, more than 25% over the average of all residences with occupancy and square footage within a certain range. Then again, I can see why the federal government doesn't do that, since they don't have the power because utilities are chartered and regulated by the states.

The question here isn't "is it a good idea to do this" (it's not by the way), the question is, "is it Government's job to do things like this" (the answer is "no").

 

[Evo]

The question here isn't "is it a good idea to do this" (it's not by the way), the question is, "is it Government's job to do things like this" (the answer is "no").

This was pushed, in large part, by environmental groups. Back in 2007 there was a "save the planet" craze going on. I remember this being passed and I don't remember there being much public opinion against it at the time. I don't know if it's funny or sad that now that people got what they wanted that they don't want it. Where was the uproar against this in 2007? It was in the news, I remember it.

 

[Kurdt]

The question here isn't "is it a good idea to do this" (it's not by the way), the question is, "is it Government's job to do things like this" (the answer is "no").

What is it that a government should do then?

 

[Upisoft]

It wouldn't happen with light bulbs. But if using lower wattage light bulbs reduces the demand, and subsequently lowers the price, then more of it will be used for something else, raising the price until some new equilibrium is reached.

I had to replace 4 bulbs in my living room. They were 40W and look like this:

I was unable to find any CFL that will replace them. They tend to be too fat near the screw. So I bought halogen -30% energy saver bulb. Now they are 42W, but give light like 60W. So, I ended with a little more wattage 42W vs. 40W and a lot more light. It doesn't look I've done any energy saving.

 

[BobG]

The question here isn't "is it a good idea to do this" (it's not by the way), the question is, "is it Government's job to do things like this" (the answer is "no").

I think this is a grey area. It is government's job to do things like this when failure to conserve shared resources could literally result in disaster.

In the West, having multi-year droughts can reduce water reserves to dangerously low levels. Implementing watering restrictions for lawns and using multi-tiered rates (a surcharge for exceeding some set amount of water usage) are important methods of preventing resources from being totally exhausted. And it would be silly to wait until the situation actually reached crisis level to act - especially when a region with limited water resources experiences steady population growth.

(I have no idea how this gets resolved on a long term basis except for Colorado to pull out of the 1922 Colorado River Compact and go to war against Utah, Arizona, and California. I think Colorado might come out okay since it's a pretty tough terrain for forces from neighboring states to invade. Of course, all those damn tourists that expect to see at least a little bit of water at the bottom of the Grand Canyon would probably demand that federal forces invade from the East, leaving Colorado hopelessly outnumbered.)

 

[Barwick]

What is it that a government should do then?

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Very very simple.

 

[Kurdt]

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Very very simple.

Thats quite naive.

 

[CAC1001]

I think this is a grey area. It is government's job to do things like this when failure to conserve shared resources could literally result in disaster.

In the West, having multi-year droughts can reduce water reserves to dangerously low levels. Implementing watering restrictions for lawns and using multi-tiered rates (a surcharge for exceeding some set amount of water usage) are important methods of preventing resources from being totally exhausted. And it would be silly to wait until the situation actually reached crisis level to act - especially when a region with limited water resources experiences steady population growth.

(I have no idea how this gets resolved on a long term basis except for Colorado to pull out of the 1922 Colorado River Compact and go to war against Utah, Arizona, and California. I think Colorado might come out okay since it's a pretty tough terrain for forces from neighboring states to invade. Of course, all those damn tourists that expect to see at least a little bit of water at the bottom of the Grand Canyon would probably demand that federal forces invade from the East, leaving Colorado hopelessly outnumbered.)

Speaking of which, why don't they just start desalinizing water from the oceans? I mean they are draining the fresh water resources out West. I have read California, or Los Angelos at least, is looking to start getting water from the Pacific. Couldn't the entire West just be supplied with desalinized water from the ocean?

 

[JaredJames]

Speaking of which, why don't they just start desalinizing water from the oceans? I mean they are draining the fresh water resources out West. I have read California, or Los Angelos at least, is looking to start getting water from the Pacific. Couldn't the entire West just be supplied with desalinized water from the ocean?

Cost? Who covers the bill?

Plus, that would but additional strain on an already over stretched electricity supply (well at least in Britain, not entirely sure one the percentage power production per plant in the US).

 

[Office_Shredder]

Speaking of which, why don't they just start desalinizing water from the oceans? I mean they are draining the fresh water resources out West. I have read California, or Los Angelos at least, is looking to start getting water from the Pacific. Couldn't the entire West just be supplied with desalinized water from the ocean?

JUST start desalinizing water from the oceans? That's actually a hard thing to do. Recent improvements in the technology have made it more cost effective today, and many places are installing the infrastructure but it's not something that you can do overnight.

One example of a bid to construct a plant which would provide water to 100,000 homes was for 300 million dollars. If you figure 4 people per home, and a population of almost 40,000,000, it would take 100 of these plants to provide residential water to all of California. As an example here:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3098/

That would provide less than half the water California needs. So you're talking about something on the order of a 100 billion dollar investment to turn California into a totally desalination based state. It probably doesn't make sense to get all the irrigation water fromn desalination (there's no point in not using water in an underground well for example) but the point stands that it's far from a simple task and the economic cost would be huge

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Cost? Who covers the bill?

Plus, that would but additional strain on an already over stretched electricity supply (well at least in Britain, not entirely sure one the percentage power production per plant in the US).

The biggest cost in vacuum desalination is the need for heat, in reverse osmosis it is the electrical need to run the high pressure pumps. For a vacuum system the electrical needs of the plant are minor, and could easily be made on-sight by running a parallel waste heat/steam system.

However with both ways of desalination building a nuclear power hybrid station would easily solve two problems in California with one plant. Electricity for the grid and fresh water for the municipal water system.

Also there is precedence for this system, every single US navy sub and aircraft carrier gets its fresh water this way, the Russians had the Shevchenko BN350 facility, Japan has 10 plants linked with PBRs, India has several research plants, and China has one as well.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf71.html" on nuclear powered desalination.