Incandescent Light Bulbs to Start Being Phased Out in 2012

[loseyourname]

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").

Question about what? Actually banning light bulbs? If that's what you mean, I didn't say anything about that.

If you just mean monitoring energy demand and taking measures to curb it when resource usage becomes too great for a particular region to handle without depletion, how is that not the job of a government? Nobody owns the snowcaps and rivers. Resource depletion is one generation robbing from the next.

 

[CAC1001]

I don't see what the fuss is about anyway. I've used CFL's since they became widely available about 10-15 years ago. I've never had a problem with light level or anything else. In fact I've never really noticed a great difference. In the UK the power companies send us new ones in the post every 6 months. I have about a dozen spares because of it.

Because in America, people don't like the government telling them what to do, and people can have various reasons for preferring incandescent over CFL.

 

[CRGreathouse]

If you just mean monitoring energy demand and taking measures to curb it when resource usage becomes too great for a particular region to handle without depletion, how is that not the job of a government? Nobody owns the snowcaps and rivers. Resource depletion is one generation robbing from the next.

Rather than go the "freedom" direction, because that's been done on this thread, how about "because it's dumb". A much better way is to allow the prices to rise to encourage conservation and discourage waste. Otherwise, resources are lost in monitoring and lost in forcing one particular method of conservation which may not be ideal. (Sending customers CFLs would be wasteful at best if low-cost LEDs were available, for example.)

 

[loseyourname]

Rather than go the "freedom" direction, because that's been done on this thread, how about "because it's dumb". A much better way is to allow the prices to rise to encourage conservation and discourage waste. Otherwise, resources are lost in monitoring and lost in forcing one particular method of conservation which may not be ideal. (Sending customers CFLs would be wasteful at best if low-cost LEDs were available, for example.)

Isn't that pretty close to exactly what I advocated? Imposing punitive taxes on excess demand so as to make overuse cost more to encourage conservation?

 

[BobG]

Rather than go the "freedom" direction, because that's been done on this thread, how about "because it's dumb". A much better way is to allow the prices to rise to encourage conservation and discourage waste. Otherwise, resources are lost in monitoring and lost in forcing one particular method of conservation which may not be ideal. (Sending customers CFLs would be wasteful at best if low-cost LEDs were available, for example.)

So, for example, when a hurricane is approaching, it's important for people to conserve basic things such as ice, gasoline (just in case an evacuation is ordered), batteries, canned goods & dry goods, etc. Therefore, stores should be able to raise prices to exhorbitant levels?

The utilities where I live essentially do that for water. There's low rate for water up to what the utilities figure is reasonable consumption. They have no idea how many people are in each residence, so the figure isn't necessarily accurate, but it's accurate for the overwhelming majority of residences since they set a pretty high limit. Water usage that exceeds that limit is charged at a much higher rate. Still not high enough to discourage excessive water usage in neighborhoods with homeowner's associations and their associated fines, but high enough to encourage many people to cut down on how much they water their grass.

In other words, your idea does work with some artificial control of pricing. In fact, with no artificial controls, the prices won't rise until the shortage actually hits and then you get price gouging. You have a situation where people waste during times of plenty and the times of shortage are more severe than they have to be.

 

[TopuLEDlight]

Untill 2010, i think LED lights will be mostly used wordwidely, led lights are energy saving light bulbs, protect our society...untill now many places like some shopping malls, factories, schools had changed the fluorescent lamps to LED tube lights. Its a big imporvement i think...

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

In Egypt CFLs are used almost exclusively

 

[TopuLEDlight]

CFLs energy saving lamps or bulbs are the second stage of energy saving lights, however compared with LED lights, CLFs bulbs are not so power saving, for LED lights, power saving is about 70-90%, also LED lights can made to be different colors, or color changing, warm white or white...have many choices...Finally i think LED lights will replace the CLFs bulbs...how do you think? But LED lights prices are higher than CLF...but its lifespan is much longer than CLFs

 

[talk2glenn]

In other words, your idea does work with some artificial control of pricing. In fact, with no artificial controls, the prices won't rise until the shortage actually hits and then you get price gouging. You have a situation where people waste during times of plenty and the times of shortage are more severe than they have to be.

This is patently false. Imagine that you observe people wasting some good (say, grain) during times of plenty (say, harvest season) and then starving during times of shortage (say, winter). As a self-interested businessman, how would you respond?

By buying up the wasted grain, and selling it back at prices you would probably consider "exhorbitant" the next winter, right? Now, how many seasonal cycles do you think it would take before everybody else caught on, and the market more or less normalized so that the change in the price of the good (again, grain in this case) changed very little between cyclical periods?

Look at 100-year price charts for a commoditity - any commodity - that are inflation adjusted and tell me what you see. Here's a Canadian 40-year chart I found with a quick google search to put you on the right path. 100 is index baseline.

http://www.ontariocorn.org/facts/crnppi04.gif

Rather than go the "freedom" direction, because that's been done on this thread, how about "because it's dumb".

It is dumb and essentially meaningless. A ban on incandescent lightbulbs presupposes that there is some sort of external cost to their use which is not captured by both bulb and electricity prices, which is absurd.

If the concern is global warming through electricity useage, then what kind of fool would assume that keeping electricity rates constant but mandating a change in light bulbs will have any kind of useful effects? Sure, in the short run, consumers will respond to the higher price of CFL's by reducing consumption elsewhere, and we might reasonably assume that a lot of the reduction will come in the form of less electricity usage (but I haven't seen any empirical data to back that claim up, and frankly I'd be surprised if anyone looked actually modeled it back in '07). But we already ration our electricity usage -we use as much electricity as we can afford to keep ourselves comfortable. If the amount of our electricity budget devoted to lighting goes down, and electricity rates and income stays the same (true in the long run, once the fixed costs of the conversion are paid), then the amount of electricity used for, say, cooling our homes or watching football games will go up; even if the effect isn't this direct, whatever economic activity I do engage in with my savings (going out to dinner, watching a movie, whatever) is almost certain to be electrically powered to some extent or another. The net effect on electricity usage will be close to zero.

The politicians suppose that their wasteful citizens already use more electricity than they could ever possibly want or need, and that therefore mandating more efficient lightbulbs will produce a direct watt-for-watt reduction in electricity demand. This sort of static analysis is silly, and easily debunked. Does Al Gore use more electricity than me? How about James Cameron? Yes on both counts. Why? Because I can see better at night, or prefer sushi to pork roast? No, silly, because they make more money and can afford more electricity, a scarce good the three of us each want an infinite amount of but have to buy in limited quantities according to our respective means.

Now, there's no denying that the CFL is more efficient - technologically and maybe, in some cases, economically, though the latter is less clear given the disposal and startup costs (and this opacity is reflected in the tepid consumer adoption of CFL's on the open market; if there were a clear advantage you wouldn't need public intervention). My dispute is with the claim that this will somehow make a meaningful difference in net energy consumption. It's a flight of political fancy.

 

[BobG]

In other words, your idea does work with some artificial control of pricing. In fact, with no artificial controls, the prices won't rise until the shortage actually hits and then you get price gouging. You have a situation where people waste during times of plenty and the times of shortage are more severe than they have to be.

This is patently false. Imagine that you observe people wasting some good (say, grain) during times of plenty (say, harvest season) and then starving during times of shortage (say, winter). As a self-interested businessman, how would you respond?

By buying up the wasted grain, and selling it back at prices you would probably consider "exhorbitant" the next winter, right? Now, how many seasonal cycles do you think it would take before everybody else caught on, and the market more or less normalized so that the change in the price of the good (again, grain in this case) changed very little between cyclical periods?

Look at 100-year price charts for a commoditity - any commodity - that are inflation adjusted and tell me what you see. Here's a Canadian 40-year chart I found with a quick google search to put you on the right path. 100 is index baseline.

http://www.ontariocorn.org/facts/crnppi04.gif

It's not patently false, although it may not be true for every commodity. For one thing, your grain example uses a short cycle that anyone could anticipate.

Fuel prices are cheap. People buy bigger vehicles. Once prices go back up, the price of a new car is too large for consumers to immediately respond. They've locked themselves into a certain level of consumption, meaning the upper level for the price isn't checked as effectively by reduced consumer consumption.

Water is cheap, people cover their entire yard with lush green grass because the water can't be used fast enough. There weren't enough reservoirs built, so any water not used will just flow downstream to the next state. Water becomes scarce and the city limits the watering of grass, residents are faced with a choice of brown lawns and fines from their homeowners association or watering their lawns in the middle of the night hoping to avoid fines from the city. Although, this example supports what you say somewhat. While a seemingly long, unpredictable cycle, people that live here a long time respond by filling up at least part of their yards with decorative rocks.

In fact, if the majority of the residents didn't move here from a different part of the country, this might be self-checking - the artificial jacking up of prices for exceeding a certain level of water consumption even in the wet years makes people respond sooner instead of designing their lawns in the wet year not realizing that it's only a matter of time before the next drought hits.

Or, alternatively, water is cheap and plentiful and the state agrees to give the downstream states (Utah, Arizona, California) a certain flat amount of water instead of a percentage of the water. Water becomes scarce and the state where all the water comes from gets hit worse by the drought than states downstream because politicians in your state made a dumb agreement before you were even born.

 

[BobG]

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).

Grrr!

One problem with LED flashlights. I was demonstrating a digital protractor made from a shoebox that could measure the angle a source of light was coming from for a class I was teaching. My digital Gray code value should show up on the white board and that value can easily be converted to an angle.

Except depending on how I held the flashlight, I had about 3 or 4 Gray code values all displayed at once! Damn LED flashlight has 6 sources of light in it and the damn protractor throws the value for all of them up on the white board at the same time!

Now I need to go get a flashlight with an incandescent bulb.

 

[Enlilninlil]

Fact is the governments can do anything they want. If they wanted to destroy the constitution they would. Australia has already banned these, so suck it up I say. Nothing lasts forever.

 

[mheslep]

Fact is the governments can do anything they want.

Not in the US.

If they wanted to destroy the constitution they would. Australia has already banned these, so suck it up I say. Nothing lasts forever.

Including governments.

 

[CAC1001]

Fact is the governments can do anything they want.

No they can't. But they try to. That's why we have liberal democracies in the first place. And we have systems of checks and balances on the governments, in particular in America.

If they wanted to destroy the constitution they would.

No they wouldn't, because they would quickly lose power.

Australia has already banned these,

So?

so suck it up I say.

Heaven forbid should the proles have a problem with the government forcefully limiting their options in the marketplace. That's also a scary way of thinking you have. It seems if the government did anything oppressive, your response would be, "They're the GOVERNMENT. So just suck it up."

Nothing lasts forever.

GREAT! So rescind the ban and when the MARKET grows tired of incandescents, they'll fade out of existence, to be replaced with something better.

 

[golonledlight]

Yes, compare to LED lights, incandescent bulb cost 10 times energy. Actually, CFL also result eviroment pollution. Because they have much harmfull gas. When CFL is abandoned, the ges also throw away to the eviroment. It's very dangerous.

 

[m k]

(not read anything)

https://www.heatball.de/en/index.php

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, compare to LED lights, incandescent bulb cost 10 times energy. Actually, CFL also result eviroment pollution. Because they have much harmfull gas. When CFL is abandoned, the ges also throw away to the eviroment. It's very dangerous.

I have some can-lights on tracks, and I switched to LED... Much less heat, a very VERY bright white light that was off-putting at first, then salubrious. I wouldn't go back, but that's my personal experience only. I find one incandescent, even weak, adds the "orange glow" to even out the LEDs, and CFLs.

 

[CAC1001]

(not read anything)

https://www.heatball.de/en/index.php

Looks like selling incandescents as "heaters" will be the only way to buy them as GE canned the high-efficiency incandescent light bulbs they were developing (they believe LEDs will become the main form of bulb in the future).

In other news, South Carolina's Senate panel passed a bill allowing the continued sale of incandescents in that state; will be interesting to see what happens if it becomes law (as the article says, probably lawsuits): http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/09/south-carolina-taking-light-bulb-ban-into-its-own-hands/

And California has already started banning the 100 watt incandescent light bulbs (they got to start on this a year early, it begins taking effect for the rest of the country in January of 2012).

 

[IMP]

I think they will always have to be available for use in ovens and freezers...

 

[Evo]

I think they will always have to be available for use in ovens and freezers...

Specialty bulbs are exempt from the ban.

 

[Newai]

(not read anything)

https://www.heatball.de/en/index.php

I love this stuff. From the link:

How can we be made to believe that using energy saving lamps will save our planet, while at the same time the rain forests have been waiting in vain for decades for effective sustainable protection?

Anyone know who it was that claimed those lamps would save our planet?

 

[WhoWee]

I love this stuff. From the link:

Anyone know who it was that claimed those lamps would save our planet?

Chinese factory owners?

 

[Evo]

Off topic post and responses have been deleted.

 

[Skins]

To my knowledge incandescent bulbs are not being banned 9as in illegal to make, sell, distribute). Rather the "ban" requires that incandescent lamps over a certain wattage have to meet certain specified efficiency requirements in terms of light output per watt of energy consumed. I recall reading somewhere that several incandescent manufacturers claim to have developed new lamps that meet the new requirements. In addition there are many different types of incandescent lamps that are exempt from the "ban". These include, special purpose lamps, decorative lamps, signal and indicator lamps, lamps below certain wattage, candelabra base lamps, left handed screw base lamps, miniature lamps, bug lamps, and many more. In all liklihood incandescent bulbs will be around for a long time to come.

 

[russ_watters]

I recall reading somewhere that several incandescent manufacturers claim to have developed new lamps that meet the new requirements.

That would seem to be unlikely, since the principle of operation of an incandescent lamp is incandescence: "Emitting light as a result of being heated." [dictionary]

In all liklihood incandescent bulbs will be around for a long time to come.

Well sure, they aren't going to disappear, but their use is going to drop by an order of magnitude or two or three.

 

[Antiphon]

I'm going to build an illegal black-market incandescent lamp business from my basement and sell the planet-killing technology to unsuspecting retirees and children. Who am I to judge their need for warm red light? They're not hurting anyone by using them in the small numbers I'll be making. Its harmless recreation. The heavy-handed legislators (aka "The Man") are in bed with Big Lighting and don't really care about what people want anyway.

 

[ttmark]

300+ million people being able to use inefficient (energy wasting) electronics isn't dangerous? Wanna back that up or are you just stating your unknowledged(is that a word lol) opinion.

The incandescent light bulb is far less dangerous to people and the environment than compact fluorescents. The energy savings claimed for compact fluorescents is not unbiased. Compact fluorescent never achieve their stated output and suffer serious decay over time. When one also considers the pour light spectrum and quality, energy extensive startup, slow warmup times, poor color reproduction, the case for compact fluorescents is poor. Also during half the year the incandescent's so called "wasted energy" goes towards heating you house.

 

[Evo]

To my knowledge incandescent bulbs are not being banned 9as in illegal to make, sell, distribute). Rather the "ban" requires that incandescent lamps over a certain wattage have to meet certain specified efficiency requirements in terms of light output per watt of energy consumed. I recall reading somewhere that several incandescent manufacturers claim to have developed new lamps that meet the new requirements. In addition there are many different types of incandescent lamps that are exempt from the "ban". These include, special purpose lamps, decorative lamps, signal and indicator lamps, lamps below certain wattage, candelabra base lamps, left handed screw base lamps, miniature lamps, bug lamps, and many more. In all liklihood incandescent bulbs will be around for a long time to come.

Not as they are today.

Incandescent lights - Under the law, incandescent bulbs that produce 310–2600 lumens of light are effectively phased out between 2012 and 2014. Bulbs outside this range (roughly, light bulbs currently less than 40 watts or more than 150 watts) are exempt from the ban. Also exempt are several classes of speciality lights, including appliance lamps, "rough service" bulbs, 3-way, colored lamps, and plant lights.[23]

By 2020, a second tier of restrictions would become effective, which requires all general-purpose bulbs to produce at least 45 lumens per watt (similar to current CFLs). Exemptions from the Act include reflector flood, 3-way, candelabra, colored, and other specialty bulbs.

The phase-out of incandescent light bulbs was supported by the Alliance to Save Energy, a coalition of light bulb manufacturers, electric utilities and conservation groups. The group estimated that lighting accounts for 22% of total U.S. electricity usage, and that eliminating incandescent bulbs completely would save $18 billion per year (equivalent to the output of 80 coal plants).[24] Light bulb manufacturers also hoped a single national standard would prevent the enactment of conflicting bans and efficiency standards by state governments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007#Incandescent_lights

The entire Act

http://energy.senate.gov/public/ind...abd-4900-aa9d-c19de47df2da&Month=12&Year=2007

 

[ttmark]

Not as they are today.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007#Incandescent_lights

The entire Act

http://energy.senate.gov/public/ind...abd-4900-aa9d-c19de47df2da&Month=12&Year=2007

Incandescents will be around much longer than compact fluorescents no matter what the government tries to force. This local phenomenon of a corporate lobby convincing ignorant politicians to use an inferior product will not stand the test of time of a global free market of rational people. LEDs will eventually replace most compact fluorescents. Incandescents will be in use generations from now.

 

[JaredJames]

Incandescents will be in use generations from now.

Good luck with that if they stop selling them.

All the 100W upwards are gone from the UK shelves at the moment as far as I'm aware. They're working it down slowly.

 

[mikelepore]

Sorry if this has been covered already, because I didn't read the whole thread. All the ceiling lamps in my house are on dimmer switches. Will I have to replace my switches, or buy special bulbs? Thank you for any advice.

 

[fluidistic]

Here in Argentina since the 1st of June you can't buy any light bulb over 25 watts.
I had 1 compact fluorescent lamp since more than 3 years and it died yesterday. When I bought a new one I asked the seller where I have to trash my dead compact fluorescent lamp since it contains mercury. He said there's no place in the country so that I have to trash it like a regular item. :/ He said I shouldn't trash more than 1 at once, due to mercury for the environment. I find this ridiculous for the environment...
What do you think?

 

[edward]

Sorry if this has been covered already, because I didn't read the whole thread. All the ceiling lamps in my house are on dimmer switches. Will I have to replace my switches, or buy special bulbs? Thank you for any advice.

You will need to change to CFLs that are meant to be used with a dimmer switch. GE has them on the market now.

http://www.acehardwareoutlet.com/ProductDetails.aspx?SKU=3237120

 

[edward]

Here in Argentina since the 1st of June you can't buy any light bulb over 25 watts.
I had 1 compact fluorescent lamp since more than 3 years and it died yesterday. When I bought a new one I asked the seller where I have to trash my dead compact fluorescent lamp since it contains mercury. He said there's no place in the country so that I have to trash it like a regular item. :/ He said I shouldn't trash more than 1 at once, due to mercury for the environment. I find this ridiculous for the environment...
What do you think?

You are right it is ridiculous.

The mercury situation is something that someone didn't think through properly. All of the CFL bulbs sold in the USA have a disposal warning on the label, yet there is no disposal infrastructure in place.

New LED bulbs are being developed that are even more efficient than CFLs and last even longer. As a matter of fact most LED lights just grow dimmer over time rather than quit working all of a sudden.

The downside is that it is difficult to get even light distribution out of LEDs. They require multiple individual LEDs in each bulb.

 

[Al68]

Sorry if this has been covered already, because I didn't read the whole thread. All the ceiling lamps in my house are on dimmer switches. Will I have to replace my switches, or buy special bulbs? Thank you for any advice.

You could do either, or install fixtures or socket adapters which will accept still-legal "specialty" incandescent bulbs, which includes all bulbs below 40W.