Incandescent Light Bulbs to Start Being Phased Out in 2012 [Archive]

CAC1001

Oct17-10, 11:19 PM

NobodySpecial

Oct17-10, 11:29 PM

how can the government mandate what light bulbs we purchase...?
Same way it can mandate lead free paint or unleaded petrol or Coke without 'coke' in it!
The reasoning for the light bulb ban is that they are inefficient and use too much energy. But that doesn't seem like a reason for government to ban them. Government could ban SUVs and pickups and big-screen TVs by that same argument it seems, couldn't they...?

They mandate insulation standards on buildings and until recently did require fuel consumption standards for classes of vehicles.
(I don't want twisty bulbs, I want the traditional, well, "bulbous" bulbs!).
And I don't want to have to stop using electronics components made with lead.

CAC1001

Oct17-10, 11:37 PM

But paint with lead was more dangerous, was it not? And emissions from gasoline/petrol with lead also were more dangerous and polluting? And Coke with coke is dangerous.

Insulation standards I can perhaps understand. Electronics components that no longer have lead I can understand.

But they want to ban incandescent light bulbs over their efficiency it seems. It isn't like incandescent light bulbs are dangerous.

zomgwtf

Oct17-10, 11:43 PM

But they want to ban incandescent light bulbs over their efficiency it seems. It isn't like incandescent light bulbs are dangerous.

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.

CAC1001

Oct17-10, 11:59 PM

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.

How is 300+ million people using inefficient light bulbs that they have been using already for decades, "dangerous?" You're making it sound like someone is advocating switching to highly inefficient bulbs from already very efficient bulbs. No one is advocating that. And even if they were, only a very select few would buy such bulbs, because they would raise their energy costs. And because only a few would buy them, they'd have to cost even more because of the small market.

Some people may not want to use these more efficient bulbs, with reasons ranging from their looks to other reasons, for example, some towns and cities have found that using such bulbs in traffic lights causes problems during winter in that the old bulbs, with their heat, would melt the snow and ice on the traffic lights, whereas the new bulbs do not do this, and thus many traffic lights end up frozen over where people cannot see them.

Gokul43201

Oct18-10, 12:11 AM

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.Clearly, CAC meant 'dangerous' in the sense of posing an immediate health risk. In fact, the onus is upon those that demand/support the ban to show that there is a considerable danger to the community from this product that warrants regulating it this extremely.

NeoDevin

Oct18-10, 12:35 AM

Clearly, CAC meant 'dangerous' in the sense of posing an immediate health risk. In fact, the onus is upon those that demand/support the ban to show that there is a considerable danger to the community from this product that warrants regulating it this extremely.

Seems to me the argument would be virtually identical to whatever was used for mandating insulation standards.

mugaliens

Oct18-10, 01:31 AM

...how can the government mandate what light bulbs we purchase...?

I dunno. Same way they can ban CFC's?

Does this create a slippery slope regarding other products? The reasoning for the light bulb ban is that they are inefficient and use too much energy. But that doesn't seem like a reason for government to ban them.[/quote]

You know, if after last decade's rolling brownouts someone had fielded a bulb which cost, long-term, half as much as incandescent and lasted twice as long, I'd think long and hard about legal means to help weed people off their incandescent dependance. No, you cannot make them give up their current incandescents. However, you can nix the supply of incandescents so that CFL's are the replacement option of choice.. They are, after all, a healthier, happier, and cheaper per life-erg solution.

I know both the color temp and spread of colors in each bulb currently stick. I've got a too-low and too-high color in each of my two-bulb floor lamps which light my apartment. They're garish to look at, but the colors which mix and spread around the room are themselves quite enjoyable.

The engineers really need to work on a better color spread, rather than trying to find the single-most perfect frequency. Our sun is a huge spread of frequencies. Just mix the phosphers, low to high, and experiment with best combinations thereof. Or skip the human research, get scientific, and find something which most closely approximates a 300W halogen bulb.

Government could ban SUVs and pickups and big-screen TVs by that same argument it seems, couldn't they...?

Yes, they could.

CAC1001

Oct18-10, 02:16 AM

You know, if after last decade's rolling brownouts someone had fielded a bulb which cost, long-term, half as much as incandescent and lasted twice as long, I'd think long and hard about legal means to help weed people off their incandescent dependance. No, you cannot make them give up their current incandescents. However, you can nix the supply of incandescents so that CFL's are the replacement option of choice.. They are, after all, a healthier, happier, and cheaper per life-erg solution.

So in other words, you don't want people to be able to decide for themselves what to buy and how to live, you want Mommy Government to decide for them? Because the people are children and Mommy Government knows best, so if the people refuse to buy products that are "healthier, happier, and cheaper," than Mommy Government must come in and force them to in some way?

While we're at it, why not ban all fast-food? And ban candy and cookies and cakes. Also ban sodas, like Coke and Pepsi, which would surely have a great long-term effect on the healthcare system, by reducing obesity and related diseases. When you stop drinking pop, you don't miss it very much. I don't think anyone would really miss fast-food either. Let's also mandate that only Energy Star appliances can be sold.

It amazes me how many people are perfectly fine with government trying to dictate to people how to live. There's a fine line between regulating in the name of keeping people safe from things like lead paint in toys, drain cleaner that could explode in your face, cars that could lose a wheel while going 70 mph, etc...and things like incandescent light bulbs because the bureaucrats "feel" that the general populace should buy them.

As for rolling brownouts, where? You mean California? In Cali, that was the result of not regulating the energy industry properly.

drankin

Oct18-10, 02:23 AM

So in other words, you don't want people to be able to decide for themselves what to buy and how to live, you want Mommy Government to decide for them? Because the people are children and Mommy Government knows best, so if the people refuse to buy products that are "healthier, happier, and cheaper," than Mommy Government must come in and force them to in some way?

While we're at it, why not ban all fast-food? And ban candy and cookies and cakes. Also ban sodas, like Coke and Pepsi, which would surely have a great long-term effect on the healthcare system, by reducing obesity and related diseases. When you stop drinking pop, you don't miss it very much. I don't think anyone would really miss fast-food either.

It amazes me how many people are perfectly fine with government trying to dictate to people how to live. There's a fine line between regulating in the name of keeping people safe from things like lead paint in toys, drain cleaner that could explode in your face, cars that could lose a wheel while going 70 mph, etc...and things like incandescent light bulbs because the bureaucrats "feel" that the general populace should buy them.

As for rolling brownouts, where? You mean California? In Cali, that was the result of not regulating the energy industry properly.

I agree, it's lunacy. Might as well bring back the prohibition while were at it. Let's not stop there, a tube guitar amp is so much more innefficient than a solid state guitar amp. Hey light is light, sound is sound. May not be as nice but just think of how much electricity is being saved... craziness.

russ_watters

Oct18-10, 05:46 AM

Seems to me the argument would be virtually identical to whatever was used for mandating insulation standards.
I disagree. Building code standards aren't for homeowners to follow, they are for architects, engineers and developers to follow. Someone who buys a home won't necessarily even know what the code requires. And that's fine: they don't have the expertise to make proper decisions about it anyway.

BobG

Oct18-10, 06:05 AM

You all realize that you need to be a little more careful with the CFL bulbs than the incandescent bulbs, right?

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

I only referenced the Snopes web page, because it addresses one of the early cases that became an overblown horror stories for not buying CFLs.

I'm not sure how many people take any special precautions for cleaning up broken CFLs, though. In fact, I'm not positive all that many maintenance people at commercial businesses know how they should handle the full size broken flourescent bulbs. They just know they can't put the old bulbs in the trash.

Borek

Oct18-10, 06:42 AM

While we're at it, why not ban all fast-food? And ban candy and cookies and cakes. Also ban sodas, like Coke and Pepsi, which would surely have a great long-term effect on the healthcare system, by reducing obesity and related diseases. When you stop drinking pop, you don't miss it very much. I don't think anyone would really miss fast-food either. Let's also mandate that only Energy Star appliances can be sold.

Trick is, many people will oppose ban on everything you have just mentioned, but later they will say "we didn't know it can hurt us" and they will sue everyone around (Mommy Gov included where applicable). If you can make people became responsible for their own actions instead of blaming everyone around, that will be much better solution. But it is not going to happen.

Perhaps the idea that world will end in 2012 is no that bad after all.

waht

Oct18-10, 07:10 AM

How many citizens does it take to screw in one efficient light bulb?

alt

Oct18-10, 07:22 AM

Jack21222

Oct18-10, 07:45 AM

So I've noticed that incandescent light bulbs are to start being phased out in 2012, and we will have to purchase those compact flourescent bubs. This was signed into law by President Bush, however I am curious, how can the government mandate what light bulbs we purchase...? Does this create a slippery slope regarding other products? The reasoning for the light bulb ban is that they are inefficient and use too much energy. But that doesn't seem like a reason for government to ban them. Government could ban SUVs and pickups and big-screen TVs by that same argument it seems, couldn't they...?

Also the incandescent bulbs cost more (though advocates say they are cheaper in the long-term) and are also ugly IMO (I don't want twisty bulbs, I want the traditional, well, "bulbous" bulbs!).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/phasing-out-incandescent-light-bulb/

This guy is apparently getting around the ban on bulbs greater than 60 watts in the European Union by selling them as miniature heaters: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69E3FS20101015

I'll never understand why people insist that they want to be needlessly inefficient. I don't mind people being inefficient because they get some other benefit from it, but the people that waste energy just for the sake of wasting energy really irk me.

I'll give some examples. People who eat meat supposedly have a larger carbon footprint than vegetarians. However, changing one's entire diet around is a major sacrifice to make in the name of efficiency.

Conversely, look at the people who speed up to red lights, only to put on their brakes as they get to the light. That is the equivalent of taking gasoline and just lighting it on fire for no reason. It would not be a major life change to just drift up to the red light.

I'd hope the free market would have killed off the old inefficient light bulbs by now, and I'm not sure that the government should be regulating this sort of thing, but come on. Pick your battles. Arguing "I want to be inefficient because I've always been inefficient! I hate saving money!" just sounds petty.

Al68

Oct18-10, 08:13 AM

I'd hope the free market would have killed off the old inefficient light bulbs by now...Why? Th market hasn't "killed off" oil lamps or wax candles yet. Of course, like oil lamps and candles, the old bulbs would become rare when the new bulbs get better and cheaper.Arguing "I want to be inefficient because I've always been inefficient! I hate saving money!" just sounds petty.It is petty if you can easily afford the initial cost of new bulbs. The old ones might cost more in the long run, but when it's dark and you're short on cash, you must pick between a 20 cent bulb and darkness. Bad decision, maybe, but not petty.

Ivan Seeking

Oct18-10, 09:59 AM

Bummer. I use CFs almost everywhere and approve of their use generally, but I still like to use incandescent bulbs in places like the pump house, where I use the bulb as a heater in the winter. I also like to use 100watt bulbs for test loads, for work. They also make nice current limiters for testing, in a pinch.

Also, except for a few months of the year, here in Oregon, the heat from an incandescent bulb is not wasted. In fact, when we factor this into the equation along with the energy cost of production, incandescent bulbs may be more efficient than CFs.

IMP

Oct18-10, 10:21 AM

I have swapped out all of the incandescent bulbs in my entire house except for the oven and the freezer. There are just so many positive things about CFL for me:

Much better color if you get the "day light" one's (warm white is yucky).
Use much less electricity.
Make much less heat (huge plus here in the south).
They last much longer.
They are becoming less expensive quickly.
The newer ones have no warm up time, they come on instantly.

LED may be the future if the prices come WAY down from where they currently are.

Greg Bernhardt

Oct18-10, 10:33 AM

I read a study somewhere that claimed using CFL bulbs was not more efficient on the basis that people ended up keeping the lights on longer.

Borek

Oct18-10, 10:33 AM

Bummer. I use CFs almost everywhere and approve of their use generally, but I still like to use incandescent bulbs in places like the pump house, where I use the bulb as a heater in the winter. I also like to use 100watt bulbs for test loads, for work. They also make nice current limiters for testing, in a pinch.

Also, except for a few months of the year, here in Oregon, the heat from an incandescent bulb is not wasted.

Plus there places where I prefer to have a bulb that goes on immediately, not in a few seconds. I will spare you details.

Evo

Oct18-10, 10:45 AM

Plus there places where I prefer to have a bulb that goes on immediately, not in a few seconds. I will spare you details.Plus you have to use a much higher wattage equivalent than what they suggest, they do not give out as much light. Still I guess at double the suggested wattage there still might be some small savings. The culprits are the people that have every light on in every room, even during the day when there is so much natural light that you can't tell the difference if you switch the light off. I did that yesterday to someone to prove my point, they didn't notice I had switched their light off.

rootX

Oct18-10, 10:49 AM

Plus you have to use a much higher wattage equivalent than what they suggest, they do not give out as much light. Still I guess at double the suggested wattage there still might be some small savings. The culprits are the people that have every light on in every room, even during the day when there is so much natural light that you can't tell the difference if you switch the light off. I did that yesterday to someone to prove my point, they didn't notice I had switched their light off.

I wonder if there has ever been a survey on that.

Barwick

Oct18-10, 10:55 AM

Same way it can mandate lead free paint or unleaded petrol or Coke without 'coke' in it!

They mandate insulation standards on buildings and until recently did require fuel consumption standards for classes of vehicles.

And I don't want to have to stop using electronics components made with lead.

I think the point was...

Here (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html) is a copy of the US Constitution, specifically the section most relevant to this post. Can you find in that list in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution, ANYWHERE where "we the people" gave "them the Mafia" (that's what I call government) the right to regulate what kind of light bulbs we can buy?

You'll remember, the Constitution is written specifically such that "if it doesn't say government can do it, then it CAN'T do it". Those "things" are limited to the states or to the people.

Ivan Seeking

Oct18-10, 11:03 AM

I think the point was...

Here (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html) is a copy of the US Constitution, specifically the section most relevant to this post. Can you find in that list in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution, ANYWHERE where "we the people" gave "them the Mafia" (that's what I call government) the right to regulate what kind of light bulbs we can buy?

You'll remember, the Constitution is written specifically such that "if it doesn't say government can do it, then it CAN'T do it". Those "things" are limited to the states or to the people.

For starters, it could be considered a matter of national security. The safety of the nation depends on our energy supply, and the grid is already stressed.

czelaya

Oct18-10, 11:18 AM

I'm surprised no one has mentioned on how this law is benefiting certain corporations. I'm sure, one way or another, the body of politicians who have pushed for this legislation is being rewarded by specific enterprises. Politicians become millionaires delegating these types of laws. I will try to find an article by the CATO Institute on the matter.

Like the OP has already stated, government intervening with what choices we make in the market is dangerous. This may seem trivial, but it's seriously opening doors to new ways government intervenes in the market, and our personal lives.

I'm still disgusted on how the federal government intervened with the American auto industry (it's sickening because you're not letting much needed corrections in the market place, and helping those who mismanage business at the tax payer's expense).

czelaya

Oct18-10, 11:21 AM

For starters, it could be considered a matter of national security. The safety of the nation depends on our energy supply, and the grid is already stressed.

Then anything can be considered national security.

Ivan Seeking

Oct18-10, 11:24 AM

Like the OP has already stated, government intervening with what choices we make in the market is dangerous. This may same trivial, but it's seriously opening doors to new ways government intervenes in the market, and our personal lives.

The problem is that your actions affect my life. Who protects me from everyone else's bad choices? We should do the same thing to incandescent bulbs that we do for cigarettes - tax them according to their cost to society. This is how we can maintain liberty while still protecting the general public.

I'm still disgusted on how the federal government intervened with American auto industry (it's sickening because you're not letting much needed corrections in the market place, and helping those who mismanage business at the tax payer's expense).

Frankly, that is just silly. Sure, we need to allow market corrections, but not when we're facing the greatest crisis since the depression. We simply couldn't afford to take the hit that the collapse of the auto industry would have generated.

czelaya

Oct18-10, 11:33 AM

The problem is that your actions affect my life. Who protects me from everyone else's bad choices?

Frankly, that is just silly. Sure, we need to allow market corrections, but not when we're facing the greatest crisis since the depression.

We are talking about bulbs here correct? Every action one makes affects another. You can't rely on central planning for your personal protection.

Silly how? What I find silly is that you're not allowing bad institutions to fail. You can't state that letting GM fail would of caused a depression. We won't know, will we, because of government intervention.

Jack21222

Oct18-10, 11:49 AM

Why? Th market hasn't "killed off" oil lamps or wax candles yet. Of course, like oil lamps and candles, the old bulbs would become rare when the new bulbs get better and cheaper.It is petty if you can easily afford the initial cost of new bulbs. The old ones might cost more in the long run, but when it's dark and you're short on cash, you must pick between a 20 cent bulb and darkness. Bad decision, maybe, but not petty.

I've never in my life been in a position where I couldn't afford a 4 dollar light bulb, and I hope I never am. I'm certain there's some sort of government assistance or charity for people that poor.

I read a study somewhere that claimed using CFL bulbs was not more efficient on the basis that people ended up keeping the lights on longer.

Why would somebody keep the light on longer just because it's a CFL? Except for the time in between when an incandescent burns out and gets replaced (where a CFL wouldn't have burnt out yet), I can't see what the type of light bulb has to do with keeping the light on longer.

NeoDevin

Oct18-10, 12:07 PM

I disagree. Building code standards aren't for homeowners to follow, they are for architects, engineers and developers to follow. Someone who buys a home won't necessarily even know what the code requires. And that's fine: they don't have the expertise to make proper decisions about it anyway.

And the new regulations will be for the light bulb manufacturers to follow. Homeowners will go to the store and buy whatever light bulbs are available.

CAC1001

Oct18-10, 01:01 PM

I'll never understand why people insist that they want to be needlessly inefficient. I don't mind people being inefficient because they get some other benefit from it, but the people that waste energy just for the sake of wasting energy really irk me.

I don't want to be "needlesly inefficient." I just don't like the government telling me what bulbs to buy, especially when the replacements at the moment can have characteristics I don't like.

Evo

Oct18-10, 01:04 PM

Why would somebody keep the light on longer just because it's a CFL? Except for the time in between when an incandescent burns out and gets replaced (where a CFL wouldn't have burnt out yet), I can't see what the type of light bulb has to do with keeping the light on longer.It's the same mentality that if your car is more fuel efficient you can drive it more and if it's lower calorie/fat, then you can eat twice as much.

CAC1001

Oct18-10, 01:11 PM

For starters, it could be considered a matter of national security. The safety of the nation depends on our energy supply, and the grid is already stressed.

Perhaps, but as mentioned, almost anything could be considered a matter of "national security." There's even a twist on this with when it comes to corporate welfare, basically which industries are a national security concern, and thus justify special subsidies, special protections, etc...that otherwise would never be granted.

Some industries one can consider a literally crucial to the national security, but what this results in is all sorts of other not really crucial industries lobbying to be labeled crucial to the national security so they can get the special priviledges.

The problem is that your actions affect my life. Who protects me from everyone else's bad choices? We should do the same thing to incandescent bulbs that we do for cigarettes - tax them according to their cost to society. This is how we can maintain liberty while still protecting the general public.

Protecting the general public from what though? We can build more power plants for the electrical grid. There's a fine line here. I don't see how my using incandescent light bulbs puts your life at risk.

So are big-screen televisions that use lots of energy a national securiy concern too? :biggrin:

Frankly, that is just silly. Sure, we need to allow market corrections, but not when we're facing the greatest crisis since the depression. We simply couldn't afford to take the hit that the collapse of the auto industry would have generated.

Couldn't the auto industry have gone through a controlled bankruptcy of some type...? Part of the auto industry bailout was about saving the UAW as well.

Barwick

Oct18-10, 01:29 PM

For starters, it could be considered a matter of national security. The safety of the nation depends on our energy supply, and the grid is already stressed.

That's probably one of the things they'd use to justify it. They can use ANY reason they want to, but does that mean it's Constitutional? No, it means they're stretching the Constitution to fit their political whims.

When one looks at the Constitution through a lens of "it means exactly what it says", it's pretty simple.

Evo

Oct18-10, 01:41 PM

Protecting the general public from what though? We can build more power plants for the electrical grid. There's a fine line here. I don't see how my using incandescent light bulbs puts your life at risk. It's supposedly what Americans want, "going green", right?

If every household in the U.S. replaced ONE light bulb with a GE Energy Smart bulb, we would save...
A combined national total of $600 million a year in energy costs.
Enough energy to light more than 3 million homes for a year and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars.

http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/products/energy_smart.htm#why

Barwick

Oct18-10, 01:55 PM

The problem is that your actions affect my life. Who protects me from everyone else's bad choices? We should do the same thing to incandescent bulbs that we do for cigarettes - tax them according to their cost to society. This is how we can maintain liberty while still protecting the general public.

Everything affects everything else in some manner. But to say that my choice of light bulbs affects you in any measurable way is an utter absurdity.

Frankly, that is just silly. Sure, we need to allow market corrections, but not when we're facing the greatest crisis since the depression. We simply couldn't afford to take the hit that the collapse of the auto industry would have generated.

The crisis we're in right now was CAUSED by those government policies, not the free market. It was from what's called "Crony Capitalism". When one group goes to government and pushes to get laws passed that benefit their industry, or company.

Government passed laws that encouraged banks to give mortgages to people who could not afford them, and promised that they would buy those mortgages through FNMA. All of a sudden, everyone and their grandmother (literally) were buying houses, so the inflation-adjusted price for a house (a value which for over a century was nearly Kansas-flat) all of a sudden went through the roof. Houses were overpriced, and it had to stop sometime. In 2003, someone said we need to stop this type of lending now, but some other group of people said "you just hate the poor". So nothing was done about it.

Now, all of a sudden someone pulls back the curtain and sees what all these crappy mortgages really are, and all of a sudden, NOBODY buys the government-backed securities from FNMA. Here's where the trouble starts.

Banks can only lend based on how much assets they have on hand. They have a TON of government-backed securities, which are one of the safest form of investments. All of a sudden though, those government-backed securities are worth a fraction of what they once were.

This normally wouldn't be a problem, except for another brilliant Government fix, the Sarbanes-Oxley act, which says you can only claim the "market value" of an asset. Well since nobody bought those Government-backed securities at the market this week, guess what they're worth "at the market"? ZERO. So now guess who has virtually "zero" assets on hand? Banks. So guess who can't loan *any* money anymore for any purpose whatsoever?

Then on top of that, as this gets worse, and people stop buying houses (because nobody has the cash to buy a house, and very few can get loans except from a few select small local banks and credit unions), the value of houses goes through the floor. NOW guess what? Those mortgage backed securities REALLY aren't worth what they're supposed to be worth anymore, and the problem went from "this could be bad" to "oh **** (a slang word for biological waste)"

Now, if you want to look directly at the auto industry, there's some cute little group of laws (again, Government) called "anti-scab laws". Basically what they say is, if a shop is a union shop, and they go on strike for any reason, it is ILLEGAL for the owner of that company to hire workers in their place while those workers are on strike. Doesn't matter if they're getting paid $35 an hour (like they did in the auto industry) plus a benefit package that would make a Senator blush... even if there's a line of 25,000 people outside the door saying "I'll take that job for $6 an hour", the owner of that company can NOT hire those people. It is ILLEGAL.

And so, the unions know it, and the management knows it. The management just wants to get back to making parts so they don't lose their job, so they give in, knowing the deal is unsustainable. The union bosses want to make more money, and they want to keep their members, so they push hard to get them these raises and benefits, knowing it's unsustainable.

But who cares, they all know the government won't let such big companies fail...

And you know why nobody else gets into the business to compete with these big 3? Because it's utterly impossible. Even if you had a 50 mpg full size truck that had the best safety system on the planet, and 500,000 of them were already built, you would need literally millions of dollars to even so much as get a single vehicle to market.

Why? Because of all the government regulations that prohibit market entry. Who do you think pushed the government for all these regulations on the auto industry? I'll give you one hint, one company's name starts with a "G" and ends with "eneral Motors". The other two you can guess... They know they have the resources to deal with those regulations, but upstart companies don't.

I live in Michigan, my business indirectly is dependent on the auto industry, but guess what, those bailouts were the most moronic thing we could have done.

Know what would have been a tremendous thing to happen? If we didn't have these asinine government regulations on the auto industry, the best thing would have been one, two, or all three of these companies breaking up, and their assets being sold to the highest bidder, piece by piece. Then, dozens of small US car manufacturers could start over, without the unfunded liabilities like the ridiculously high pensions and such, and make cars that are the most competitive in the world.

Evo

Oct18-10, 01:58 PM

Let's stay on the topic of lightbulbs.

Barwick

Oct18-10, 02:04 PM

How do you discuss a topic without also discussing analogous situations and historical data?

Evo

Oct18-10, 02:08 PM

How do you discuss a topic without also discussing analogous situations and historical data?It's called staying *on topic*. Discussing whether an automotive company should have been bailed out has absolutely zero to do with energy saving lightbulbs.

No more dragging the thread off topic by anyone please.

mheslep

Oct18-10, 02:29 PM

I agree, it's lunacy. Might as well bring back the prohibition while were at it. Interesting point. At the time in the US people commonly assumed an amendment to the Constitution was required, the 18th, for the federal government to accomplish such a sweeping prohibition, and yet another amendment was required to repeal the first. Now it seems the federal government is said to evolve to do what ever it desires.

Barwick

Oct18-10, 03:02 PM

Interesting point. At the time in the US people commonly assumed an amendment to the Constitution was required, the 18th, for the federal government to accomplish such a sweeping prohibition, and another amendment to repeal it. Now it seems the federal government is said to evolve to do what ever it desires.

mmmmhmmm... The last time they followed the Constitution on something was the prohibition... it may have been wrong, but at least it was Constitutional.

edward

Oct18-10, 03:04 PM

It's the same mentality that if your car is more fuel efficient you can drive it more and if it's lower calorie/fat, then you can eat twice as much.

Actually it is a bit more than that. I remember as a kid we had a circular fluorescent bulb in the kitchen. My mom would always say: "just leave the light on, turning it off and on makes it burn out faster."

Now I find this at a GE web site:

Can I use a CFL in applications where I will be turning the lights on/off frequently?
Compact fluorescent light bulbs work best if they are left on for over 15 minutes each time they are turned on. These types of lamps can take up to 3 minutes to warm-up. Warm-up will probably not be noticeable from a user stand point, but the lamp needs to warm-up in order to reach the point of most efficient operation. Frequently switching them on and off will shorten the life of the product. If the life of the lamp is shortened significantly, you will not reap the financial benefits (includes energy & life of lamp), that are common to CFL lamps.

There are other things to keep in mind. For lights with a dimmer switch a special CFL bulb must be used. I think that these are fairly recent.

Don't use CFL's in recessed lighting because they may overheat. That sounds odd, but apparently the plastic base on the bulbs still can get very hot. Some of the CFL's that I have replaced looked like the base was partially melted.

http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/ask_us/faq_compact.htm

mheslep

Oct18-10, 03:35 PM

[...]
Don't use CFL's in recessed lighting because they may overheat. That sounds odd, but apparently the plastic base on the bulbs still can get very hot. Some of the CFL's that I have replaced looked like the base was partially melted.That's because incandescent bulbs, inefficient as they are, radiate a good bit of the waste heat as relatively near IR, or short wave, much of which transits the bulb directly into the room. CFLs, and to a larger degree LED lighting with all their efficiency, radiate heat in the far IR or very long wave. The latter doesn't go directly into the room, but ends up conducted or convected into the housing. Some LED recessed lighting products come with some heat sink attachments as a consequence. Expensive, but then again it lasts ~10 years.

CAC1001

Oct18-10, 05:28 PM

Two quick questions:

1) Are infrared heat lamps basically lightbulbs that you can't see the light to? (since incandescent lightbulbs emit so much of their energy as heat as opposed to light?).

2) Won't these new CFLs hurt the profits of the lightbulb companies if they last so long? I mean a company I don't think would want a mass-produced product to last too long, right?

WhoWee

Oct18-10, 09:16 PM

For starters, it could be considered a matter of national security. The safety of the nation depends on our energy supply, and the grid is already stressed.

I like that argument - for the need for more nuclear and coal plants.

CRGreathouse

Oct18-10, 10:04 PM

Evo

Oct18-10, 10:10 PM

CRGreathouse

Oct18-10, 11:17 PM

Not seeing it, Evo... :frown:

Al68

Oct19-10, 12:15 AM

For starters, it could be considered a matter of national security. The safety of the nation depends on our energy supply, and the grid is already stressed.LOL. Now that's an pretty extreme example of rationalization to justify violating the constitution.

That's even better than the absurd nonsense right-wing pundits make up as hyperbole to make fun of Democrats.

I hope that was intended as a joke.

Argentum Vulpes

Oct19-10, 02:12 AM

...
There are other things to keep in mind. For lights with a dimmer switch a special CFL bulb must be used. I think that these are fairly recent.

Don't use CFL's in recessed lighting because they may overheat. That sounds odd, but apparently the plastic base on the bulbs still can get very hot. Some of the CFL's that I have replaced looked like the base was partially melted.

http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/ask_us/faq_compact.htm

Also most CFL bulbs are orientation specific as was alluded to. Most must be positioned base down, to run a horizontal base or a base up position only certain CFLs can be used (check the package). Having a CFL in a highly humid area (bathroom) can also cause major problems (again check the package). Also I have yet to see a CFL that can be used in an oven, freezer, or refrigerator.

Well if this law stands get ready to say good by to plasma TVs. Because it seems with the green movement here in the USA if Europe dose it then about a year later the USA will do it.

ThomasEdison

Oct19-10, 02:28 AM

Does anyone have data on how electricity is actually used? (In the world, the UK, the US, the EU, or whatever.) I imagine lighting isn't that large a portion, and that most of it wasn't incandescent (highway lighting, factory lighting, etc.).

Before I switched out my incandescents my household electricity bill would be dominated by lighting (~50%?) in the spring and fall, but I don't know that I was typical and I'm pretty sure that consumer electricity usage is a small slice of the total.

Question: How is electricity consumed in U.S. homes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Residential Electricity Consumption by End Use, 2008

End-Use Quadrillion
Btu Billion Kilowatt-
hours Share of Total

Space Cooling 0.77 227 16.5%
Lighting 0.72 212 15.4%
Water Heating 0.43 127 9.2%
Space Heating1 0.42 123 8.9%
Refrigeration 0.38 110 8.0%
Televisions and Set-Top Boxes 0.35 101 7.3%
Clothes Dryers 0.26 77 5.6%
Computers and Related Equipment 0.17 49 3.6%
Cooking 0.11 31 2.2%
Dishwashers 2 0.09 27 2.0%
Freezers 0.08 23 1.7%
Clothes Washers 2 0.03 10 0.7%
Other — Miscellaneous Uses 0.89 260 18.8%

Total Consumption 4.71 1,379

http://www.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp#electricity_lighting
That was for residential.

I would have thought lighting would have been first at 30% or higher so my assumptions were incorrect as well probably because I think in terms of commerical/industrial and those statistics are for homes.

In most construction jobs installing lights and the branch circuits to support them is a huge portion of the work if not the largest part of it. Next time you are in an office count the amount of lights around you and consider how many bulbs are in each one. I've installed 40 or so 2x4 foot flourescent lights in many rooms that only had a few unused receptacles. Think of all the lighting in hallways and walkways where no other power is being consumed. Not too mention outside lighting.

An odd side effect of mass converting away from incandescant will be that some of the larger buildings will have a greater heating bill because they now lack the waste heat from incandescants. In a residential home you may not notice the heat difference but in a very large building you will.

I'm biased towards flourescent because I am one of the very few people (in fact I've met nobody else) who actually prefers white flourescent light for the light.

CAC1001

Oct19-10, 07:25 AM

Here is an interesting article: http://homerepair.about.com/od/electricalrepair/ss/2007_energybill.htm

Also: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs.html ($5 a bulb for high-efficiency incandescents!?)

JaredJames

Oct19-10, 09:08 AM

I'm seeing two arguments here:

1) I don't want the government deciding what I can and can't buy.

2) I don't mind the government deciding because it's a more efficient techology.

The problem I have is that the first group of people, so far (unless I've missed it) haven't given a valid argument as to why they want to remain using an inefficient technology. Now let's not get bogged down in whether or not they are more efficient because this debate is essentially about the government deciding what you can and cannot buy. For the purposes of now, let's assume they are more efficient.

Now, the reason I bring up this issue I have with the first argument is because it appears the first group of people aren't arguing about efficiency and whether or not the product is better, but more about the constitution.

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.

You could equally argue that car manufacturers shouldn't bother making cars more efficient. The old ones do the job, why not just keep pumping them out of the factories and not waste money on new designs when people like the old ones so much? When a car manufacturer comes up with a new set of designs and brings out some new vehicles, getting rid of the old ones, why does no one throw their toys out and attack them for giving them no choice in which new cars they can buy? For making them have to go for their new designs?

(And before anyone throws up the 'petrol's running out' argument, bare in mind just how overstretched the power grids are. The UK is running at 80+% capacity per plant which means one going out can have serious repercussions when compensating with others, given the current system, but that's another issue.)

This is something of a rant, but I'm very curious about it.

The government does something you don't like (banning these bulbs) you can do something about it, you have a course of action to challenge the decision. A private company does the same thing (not so much banning but simply stop selling) and you have no course of action.

Please, tear this post apart and explain (very carefully) why I'm wrong here. I would be very interested to know. I'm rather undecided on the matter so far at this point (despite the above) and perhaps you could help clear this issue up for me.

Barwick

Oct19-10, 09:22 AM

I'm seeing two arguments here:

1) I don't want the government deciding what I can and can't buy.

2) I don't mind the government deciding because it's a more efficient techology.

The problem I have is that the first group of people, so far (unless I've missed it) haven't given a valid argument as to why they want to remain using an inefficient technology.
{snip}
Now, the reason I bring up this issue I have with the first argument is because it appears the first group of people aren't arguing about efficiency and whether or not the product is better, but more about the constitution.

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.
{snip}
The government does something you don't like (banning these bulbs) you can do something about it, you have a course of action to challenge the decision. A private company does the same thing (not so much banning but simply stop selling) and you have no course of action.

Please, tear this post apart and explain (very carefully) why I'm wrong here. I would be very interested to know. I'm rather undecided on the matter so far at this point (despite the above) and perhaps you could help clear this issue up for me.

I like you :) An open mind asking good questions.

The problem is, the 2nd to last paragraph (in the quote above anyway).

The difference between Government saying you *have* to do something, and a private company (or companies) doing that is:

When Government says something, EVERYONE *has* to comply. If they do not, they face fines, penalties, or eventually if you don't pay those, confiscation of property or jail time.

Private companies cannot force you to buy something, no matter how hard they try. If they do, it's illegal. They cannot put a gun to your head and say "Buy this or else" like the government can. Even if ALL companies colluded together to only sell swirly-bulbs, then I guarantee you within 6 months a new company would spring up selling incandescent bulbs, and if they went public, their IPO would bring in over a billion dollars; a testament to market demand.

So in short, Government can force everyone (and usually does). Businesses cannot put a gun to your head like Government can.

Jack21222

Oct19-10, 09:55 AM

JaredJames

Oct19-10, 10:05 AM

So in short, Government can force everyone (and usually does). Businesses cannot put a gun to your head like Government can.

I understand the issue regarding the government forcing people to do things. However, if people don't like something they have the power to do something about it when it comes to the government. This is not so with private companies (unless you boycot them, but then if they're all working towards the same goal how do you boycott all companies and still access required products?).

There is always a course of action when it comes to legal matters such as this. The people can fight it. If anything, my current view tells me that it's better to have a government where you can at least have a say in issues, deciding on things such as this, than have all of the MNC's simply decide it for you and then give you no option.

Then again, I live in the UK, where the government (especially now) doesn't listen to the people anyway. :grumpy: And in certain cases now, are actively lying to the people. But again, that's another issue.

Barwick

Oct19-10, 12:16 PM

I understand the issue regarding the government forcing people to do things. However, if people don't like something they have the power to do something about it when it comes to the government. This is not so with private companies (unless you boycot them, but then if they're all working towards the same goal how do you boycott all companies and still access required products?).

There is always a course of action when it comes to legal matters such as this. The people can fight it. If anything, my current view tells me that it's better to have a government where you can at least have a say in issues, deciding on things such as this, than have all of the MNC's simply decide it for you and then give you no option.

Then again, I live in the UK, where the government (especially now) doesn't listen to the people anyway. :grumpy: And in certain cases now, are actively lying to the people. But again, that's another issue.

When it comes to government, if you are in the *majority* you can do something about it. If you were black in the south, you could do nothing about government failing to enact justice by prosecuting slave holders (which is what Government should do).

The difference is, like I said before, unless there is coercion and threats (by companies or by government laws), there will *never* fail to be a company to produce some form of product that people want. If people want incandescent light bulbs, they'll make them.

Case in point, in the early 20th century, blacksmiths and carriage makers were all over the place. Henry Ford made the automobile inexpensively and still maintained a profit. Within not too many years, blacksmiths and carriage makers became a thing of the past. BUT, they're still in existence today, and serve a purpose in a specialty market.

By the "ban the light bulb" reasoning, if Government said "these horses are dirty, they crap all over the street, and they're a very inefficient use of resources", and banned horseshoes and carriages, do you understand the havok that would have wreaked and would still be witnessing today?

Evo

Oct19-10, 12:45 PM

When it comes to government, if you are in the *majority* you can do something about it. If you were black in the south, you could do nothing about government failing to enact justice by prosecuting slave holders (which is what Government should do).

The difference is, like I said before, unless there is coercion and threats (by companies or by government laws), there will *never* fail to be a company to produce some form of product that people want. If people want incandescent light bulbs, they'll make them.

Case in point, in the early 20th century, blacksmiths and carriage makers were all over the place. Henry Ford made the automobile inexpensively and still maintained a profit. Within not too many years, blacksmiths and carriage makers became a thing of the past. BUT, they're still in existence today, and serve a purpose in a specialty market.

By the "ban the light bulb" reasoning, if Government said "these horses are dirty, they crap all over the street, and they're a very inefficient use of resources", and banned horseshoes and carriages, do you understand the havok that would have wreaked and would still be witnessing today?Do you understand the reasoning behind the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007? It was pushed by environmental groups such as the NRDC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007#Oppos ition_to_the_bill

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]

[/B]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.

JaredJames

Oct19-10, 12:50 PM

Just for the record, the only reason I'm not a fan of these bulbs so far is that they don't seem to perform as well as conventional bulbs.

The ones we have in my house are no where near as bright as their incandescent equivalant and have a 'warm up' time. I'm not saying the latest ones are like that, but it has certainly had an effect on how I view them and has discouraged me from swapping out all my bulbs for them.

Ben Niehoff

Oct19-10, 01:04 PM

Fluorescent bulbs make me feel uneasy and agitated. I think it's the 60 Hz flickering and the lack of a true thermal spectrum. This is why I always buy conventional, incandescent bulbs.

I hadn't heard of this upcoming ban before, but this is disappointing news. Now my home will be forced to feel like an office environment or a hospital. Thanks, gov't.

Edit: Also, mercury vapor? Mmm, my favorite!

BobG

Oct19-10, 01:16 PM

Barwick:

Your assertion that an incandescent light bulb company would be worth a billion dollars is firmly rooted in some mystical fantasyland where there is a high demand for old, inefficient light bulbs.

Go to a store that sells light bulbs. Other than small specialty bulbs, what do you see more of? Incandescent or florescent?

He must be living in the same fantasyland where consumers would buy big inefficient SUVs just because they were exempt from the fuel efficiency standards of your regular car.

This must be the same fantasyland where consumers would prefer a big, inefficient 3.5 gallon toilet water tank over the 1.6 gallon low flow toilets that were mandated in the 1992 Energy Policy Act.

Efficiency isn't the only factor in buying decisions. Some people care a great deal about the ambience created by their lights; not just by whether they can see well enough to read. Some people care about the disposal problems associated with CFLs. I can almost guarantee that most people buying CFLs don't even realize there are restrictions affecting disposal of flourescent bulbs, let alone follow them.

The alternatives to CFLs are a more promising solution and it's almost certain that the new policies will result in those alternatives being improved to the point that they will probably squeeze CFLs out of the market, so the policies aren't all bad.

Neither was the mandate to switch to 1.6 gallon toilet tanks. It prompted a surge in toilet flushing technology that eventually resulted in effective toilets that also saved water.

The difference is that pushing these limits when CFLs are the alternative to traditional incandescent bulbs creates a whole new problem to replace the energy inefficiency. The government is going to have to turn around and ban CFLs sometime in the future to encourage consumers to switch to a different energy efficienct bulb that's not so environmentally unfriendly.

Evo

Oct19-10, 01:28 PM

Also, the ban is phased, only 100 watt bulbs will be phased out in 2012.

mheslep

Oct19-10, 01:44 PM

Barwick

Oct19-10, 02:17 PM

Do you understand the reasoning behind the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007? It was pushed by environmental groups such as the NRDC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007#Oppos ition_to_the_bill

I bought some swirley-bulbs for my house about 4 months ago because I saw them at a store for like a buck a piece for 100 watt bulbs. It seemed pretty cheap to me, and for the reduced power consumption, was a benefit, so I bought them. When they're the right price and provide what I'm looking for, I buy things. That's how freedom works.

But on to your quote, I still have to ask the question "So what?" This nation was founded on the principles of individual freedom. The very fact that we're even debating this, with honest, good people claiming that government banning a certain product in the interest of "efficiency" is a good thing, is testament to the fact that most people do not comprehend the concept of "individual liberty".

Individual Liberty is the basis for every advancement we've seen in society. Out of 1.2 billion Chinese people, do you honestly think that there isn't ONE Thomas Edison in there? I'll tell you why he hasn't surfaced yet, because in China, you do not have Individual Liberty like you had in the United States in the 1800's.

Individual Liberty means that I can choose what works best for MY life, without government central planners deciding what's best for everyone as a whole. Central planning of an economy, or even sectors of an economy has never, EVER worked in the entire history of human existence. Worse yet, the only way to ultimately enforce central planning when not everyone complies, as we saw with Josef Stalin and the slaughter of the Ukranians in the 1930's, is to force them to comply.

Are we going to see the slaughter of people for buying incandescent light bulbs? No. But banning light bulbs is 5% of the way down the path toward central planning, and if we're willing to accept that, and everyone claims it was a "resounding success", why not accept the next 5% of that step, and the next, and the next?

Barwick

Oct19-10, 02:19 PM

He must be living in the same fantasyland where consumers would buy big inefficient SUVs just because they were exempt from the fuel efficiency standards of your regular car.

This must be the same fantasyland where consumers would prefer a big, inefficient 3.5 gallon toilet water tank over the 1.6 gallon low flow toilets that were mandated in the 1992 Energy Policy Act.

Efficiency isn't the only factor in buying decisions. Some people care a great deal about the ambience created by their lights; not just by whether they can see well enough to read. Some people care about the disposal problems associated with CFLs. I can almost guarantee that most people buying CFLs don't even realize there are restrictions affecting disposal of flourescent bulbs, let alone follow them.

The alternatives to CFLs are a more promising solution and it's almost certain that the new policies will result in those alternatives being improved to the point that they will probably squeeze CFLs out of the market, so the policies aren't all bad.

Neither was the mandate to switch to 1.6 gallon toilet tanks. It prompted a surge in toilet flushing technology that eventually resulted in effective toilets that also saved water.

The difference is that pushing these limits when CFLs are the alternative to traditional incandescent bulbs creates a whole new problem to replace the energy inefficiency. The government is going to have to turn around and ban CFLs sometime in the future to encourage consumers to switch to a different energy efficienct bulb that's not so environmentally unfriendly.

Thanks Bob, you saved me a lot of writing, but that's exactly my point.

Evo

Oct19-10, 02:22 PM

Thanks Bob, you saved me a lot of writing, but that's exactly my point.I believe Bob was arguing against you. Which of his points do you agree with?

JaredJames

Oct19-10, 02:30 PM

I can choose what works best for MY life, without government central planners deciding what's best for everyone as a whole.

And to hell with the consequences I suppose?

Killing all those that p*** me off and disagrees with me might be best for "MY life", but is that what's best for everyone else?

You can't make a rational argument that you should be able to do everything good for your life. Society can't function like that.

Do people really have a problem with the government bringing in more efficient technologies?

Perhaps we should rise up and force them to bring back leaded petrol?

Evo

Oct19-10, 02:36 PM

Here in the US CFL's are just one option, aside from the incadescent bulbs which will remain available, we also have halogen and LED as options.

I can't see using CFL's for the bathroom or closets which are usully turned on and off within a couple of minutes, not outside in winter (found that out the hard way) when it's cold, they just won't light up other than a faint glow after warming for 20 minutes, worthless.

Gokul43201

Oct19-10, 02:45 PM

And to hell with the consequences I suppose?I'd like to see someone in this thread list some of the main consequences (pros and cons). That will make for a more streamlined discussion I think.

Evo

Oct19-10, 02:50 PM

I'd like to see someone in this thread list some of the main consequences (pros and cons). That will make for a more streamlined discussion I think.

Pros

energy savings
lower electric bills

Cons

less variety of bulbs to select from
If you select CFL's, more difficult to throw away properly, but most Americans won't know this

Did I miss anything?

JaredJames

Oct19-10, 02:51 PM

Did I miss anything?

Did I see somewhere earlier that the CFL have longer lives than incandescants?

Aside from that, nope, you about covered it.

Office_Shredder

Oct19-10, 02:52 PM

Do people really have a problem with the government bringing in more efficient technologies?

Does inefficient technology kill people like you claim it does? If your problem is with global warming/pollution, it makes more sense to regulate power usage or the method of power creation than what kind of products you can buy from a "what's the root of the problem" point of view

But banning light bulbs is 5% of the way down the path toward central planning, and if we're willing to accept that, and everyone claims it was a "resounding success", why not accept the next 5% of that step, and the next, and the next?

We can accept them until they stop being a resounding success. This sounds like a reasonable method of optimizing government regulation.

Arguments about how CFL is better for the economy are bogus. Yes, they're good reasons to buy the bulb, but when has economic inefficiency ever been a reason for banning something? At that point we should be banning jewelery and hobbies too

Upisoft

Oct19-10, 02:53 PM

Did I miss anything?

Cons:
Non-thermal spectrum and flickering. Described as unnatural light. It gives me a headache in no time.

Barwick

Oct19-10, 02:56 PM

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

The one where he agreed with my point that consumers will choose to buy products whether they're "inefficient" or not, and that government mandates (that we move to CFLs) is sure to cause more problems that will require another "oh save us from ourselves" government law to fix.

Mark my words, some number of years from now, when another lighting technology is available, we will have documentaries on TV about how horrible CFLs are for the environment, and how government needs to ban them.

JaredJames

Oct19-10, 02:56 PM

Does inefficient technology kill people like you claim it does? If your problem is with global warming/pollution, it makes more sense to regulate power usage or the method of power creation than what kind of products you can buy from a "what's the root of the problem" point of view

Power is supplied 'on demand' (they know when the demands for energy occur and so provide enough to cover it). If we lower the amount of energy used, we lower the demand, we can produce less power, we don't produce as much pollution? I'd say telling people how to / how much they can use is inflicting significantly more control than simply making them use a specific light bulb. At least they still get the same amount of light in the latter scenario, just with lower energy use. By providing more energy efficient light bulbs, that is a form of regulation on energy use.

Office_Shredder

Oct19-10, 03:03 PM

Power is supplied 'on demand' (they know when the demands for energy occur and so provide enough to cover it). If we lower the amount of energy used, we lower the demand, we can produce less power, we don't produce as much pollution? I'd say telling people how to / how much they can use is inflicting significantly more control than simply making them use a specific light bulb. At least they still get the same amount of light in the latter scenario, just with lower energy use. By providing more energy efficient light bulbs, that is a form of regulation on energy use.

If you buy a CFL and leave it turned on all year, and I buy an incandescent to turn on once a month for five minutes in my basement, who's using more energy? It's a PITA to wait for a CFL to warm up sometimes, especially if it's a bulb that's not used often (you wait a long time to use the light for a short period of time). Why should I be punished by being forced to replace that incandescent with a CFL? It would make more sense to just take your light bulb away and make you use a candle.

Restricting light bulb use is like responding to leaded gasoline by requiring cars be more gas efficient

Barwick

Oct19-10, 03:05 PM

And to hell with the consequences I suppose?

Killing all those that p*** me off and disagrees with me might be best for "MY life", but is that what's best for everyone else?

You can't make a rational argument that you should be able to do everything good for your life. Society can't function like that.

Do people really have a problem with the government bringing in more efficient technologies?

Perhaps we should rise up and force them to bring back leaded petrol?

How is ME choosing to use a light bulb in any way detrimental on your life?

I buy something and pay for it by my productivity (legally earned dollars in hand is proof that I have done something productive). If I'm not productive, I can't afford to buy it. If I am productive however, I have added value to society, and as a result, my "inefficient use of resources" is more than offset by the productivity I have added.

In *no* way is my use of resources detrimental to you simply because you think like the latest alarmist trend "We're all going to die because we don't have enough _______". In the 1970's that ____ was natural gas, and state legislatures put companies out of business (like plant nurseries for example) because it became illegal to sell natural gas to businesses, why? Because "we're all going to die, we don't have enough, and we need to make sure we have enough to sell to Grandma". Their estimates back then were on the order of decades... Now with those bans lifted, today we realize we have over a 100 year supply of natural gas, on the low end.

All this was done by government in the name of protecting us from our inefficient selves. *EVERY* single time this has happened, it has resulted in an utter failure. The ONLY regulations put on individuals and businesses that have been successful to date are the environmental laws that prohibit prolific spewing of legitimate pollutants (aka not CO2) into the air, and toxic or nearly toxic ones into the water. Today our air and water is cleaner because of them.

THOSE laws are a legitimate use of governmental power. I have no right to dump antifreeze into the river behind my house, because I have no way to guarantee that that antifreeze won't end up in someone else's water as that river moves. Same with dumping on land, or pumping out smokestacks. When everyone is limited in how much legitimate pollution is put into nature, then we're all better for it.

With that said, that is the ONE and only example of government regulation that has been legitimate and beneficial.

IMP

Oct19-10, 03:21 PM

Pros:

Use less energy compared to incandescent
Much better color if you get the “day light” ones
They generate less heat
They last much longer than incandescent
Newer ones are “instant on”, no warm up time

Cons:

Cost more up front
Don’t work well in cold environments
Not easily dimmable
Can be noisy (especially in cold environments)
Contain mercury

Evo

Oct19-10, 03:26 PM

mheslep

Oct19-10, 03:56 PM

Kurdt

Oct19-10, 04:06 PM

Individual Liberty is the basis for every advancement we've seen in society. Out of 1.2 billion Chinese people, do you honestly think that there isn't ONE Thomas Edison in there? I'll tell you why he hasn't surfaced yet, because in China, you do not have Individual Liberty like you had in the United States in the 1800's.

Perhaps you mean Joseph Swan for this particular example. :wink:

Jack21222

Oct19-10, 04:16 PM

I don't understand all of you people saying the CFLs take a long time to turn on. I have a CFL above my head right now, and an incandescent (the last one in my house) about 3 meters away in my bathroom.

I just went back and forth, turning them on and off, and I can't discern a difference between the "turn on" time of one vs the other. If there is a difference, it's too short to be noticed with the human senses.

I just repeated this experiment with 3 other CFLs in my house. For two of them, they came on instantly, and in one which I haven't touched in months, it flickered briefly before coming on, but even in that case it came on within 1 second.

I'm sorry, but if you're are going to be upset about having to wait 1 second for light, perhaps you need to loosen up your schedule a little.

JaredJames

Oct19-10, 04:18 PM

Jack21222

Oct19-10, 04:31 PM

No Jack, the older ones I'm currently rocking here don't give full intensity for a few minutes. They take time to warm up. The colder it is, the longer it takes.

So far as light goes, they give it straight away, but if it's cold they are rather dim for the first few minutes.

Mine must be newer, then. I don't keep my house particularly cold (68 oF). Mine appear to either give out full intensity, or so close to full intensity that I don't notice the difference, immediately.

mheslep

Oct19-10, 04:40 PM

Mine must be newer, then. I don't keep my house particularly cold (68 oF). Mine appear to either give out full intensity, or so close to full intensity that I don't notice the difference, immediately.If you use them for any outside lighting in the winter you'll clearly notice the turn on time (unless very recent models have improved the issue).

Mu naught

Oct19-10, 05:16 PM

Yea - these newer bulbs are good from an energy conservation perspective, but they break VERY easily and release poisonous mercury...

It's a health risk as far as I'm concerned.

Office_Shredder

Oct19-10, 06:16 PM

naught, I've never actually seen a scientific study one way or the other on that, do you have a source?

Mu naught

Oct19-10, 07:10 PM

naught, I've never actually seen a scientific study one way or the other on that, do you have a source?

A source for what?

I've used them, and broken them, it doesn't take much. They have a warning label on the side stating they contain mercury vapor. If they break, where do you assume that vapor is going to go?

What about this requires a scientific study?

JaredJames

Oct19-10, 07:24 PM

Proof they're a health risk.

I've used quite a few of them over the last few years and so far have only managed to break one and that was because it seized into the fitting on the ceiling and I applied 'excess' force to remove it (used the old irish screwdriver - not my best judgement call).

When they do break however, is there enough vapour to cause concern, is it in large quantities/concentrations? Do enough of these bulbs break regularly enough to cause concern regarding levels of mercury? Basically, a study showing all of this stuff and some more detail in order to back up the claims made.

Evo

Oct19-10, 07:51 PM

naught, I've never actually seen a scientific study one way or the other on that, do you have a source?It's well known OS.

http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeowner/fluorescent.htm

and

But if you break a CFL, you'll have a toxic spill in your home.
Maine's Department of Environmental Protection has developed the best advice on the procedures to follow if a CFL breaks. Don't use a vacuum. Maine officials studied the issue because of a homeowner in that state who received a $2,000 light bulb clean-up bill from an environmental hazards company—a story that has circulated around the country and increased consumer concerns about CFLs. It turns out that the company's advice was overkill, and a subsequent analysis showed no hazard in the home. But the bulbs must be handled with caution. Using a drop cloth might be a good new routine to develop when screwing in a light bulb, to make the clean-up of any breaks easier.

http://money.usnews.com/money/business-economy/articles/2007/12/19/faq-the-end-of-the-light-bulb-as-we-know-it.html

JaredJames

Oct19-10, 08:01 PM

http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeowner/fluorescent.htm

Have to say, the "I've broken one" advice seems a bit overkill. It is interesting though and I'm reading their full report on breakages now.

As I said previously, I broke one (in an enclosed room) and I'm still around. Health wise, I think you'd have to be breaking a fair few of these within a short space of time to be affected.

I always use a cloth when changing light bulbs, I'm paranoid they'd break. (In the case of the CFL I didn't have a cloth, it shattered right above my head when I whacked the fitting a tad violently).

Office_Shredder

Oct19-10, 08:21 PM

It's well known OS.

http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeowner/fluorescent.htm

and

http://money.usnews.com/money/business-economy/articles/2007/12/19/faq-the-end-of-the-light-bulb-as-we-know-it.html

From your own quote"
It turns out that the company's advice was overkill, and a subsequent analysis showed no hazard in the home.

If there was no hazard in the home, how can it be well known that these things are dangerous upon breaking? Perhaps "well believed" is a better phrase. If this is such an obvious fact there should be an authoritative source stating that they are a health risk in the home

Evo

Oct19-10, 08:23 PM

Have to say, the "I've broken one" advice seems a bit overkill. It is interesting though and I'm reading their full report on breakages now.

As I said previously, I broke one (in an enclosed room) and I'm still around. Health wise, I think you'd have to be breaking a fair few of these within a short space of time to be affected.

I always use a cloth when changing light bulbs, I'm paranoid they'd break. (In the case of the CFL I didn't have a cloth, it shattered right above my head when I whacked the fitting a tad violently).I'm not afrid of mercury, heck as a child, we used to play with mercury that we got from broken thermometers and that's 100 times the amount of mercury in one of these bulbs.

CAC1001

Oct19-10, 09:28 PM

I'm not afrid of mercury, heck as a child, we used to play with mercury that we got from broken thermometers and that's 100 times the amount of mercury in one of these bulbs.

If that's the case, then what's with all this stuff about "properly disposing" of the CFLs? Sounds like they won't be a problem in that sense...? Also while I agree that there will be some alternatives to CFLs, not really very many, and not cheap ones at all.

CAC1001

Oct19-10, 09:31 PM

Evo

Oct19-10, 09:31 PM

If that's the case, then what's with all this stuff about "properly disposing" of the CFLs? Sounds likey won't be a problem in that sense...?My personal feelings about mercury doesn't affect environmental agencies, now does it?

Evo

Oct19-10, 09:34 PM

From your own quote"

If there was no hazard in the home, how can it be well known that these things are dangerous upon breaking? Perhaps "well believed" is a better phrase. If this is such an obvious fact there should be an authoritative source stating that they are a health risk in the homeThat comment is about a $2,000 bill from an environmental clean up company. It was found that their report was exagerrated.

Why don't people read the articles linked? <pulls hair out>

CAC1001

Oct19-10, 09:34 PM

Well I just mean it seems like the environmental agencies are blowing it out of proportion a bit.

Evo

Oct19-10, 09:37 PM

Well I just mean it seems like the environmental agencies are blowing it out of proportion a bit.I think all environmental agencies and environmanetal groups blow things out of proporation on a regular basis. No argument from me.

Barwick

Oct19-10, 10:19 PM

I'm not afrid of mercury, heck as a child, we used to play with mercury that we got from broken thermometers and that's 100 times the amount of mercury in one of these bulbs.

I'll 1-up you... I remember playing with it in grade school... And that wasn't all THAT long ago...

But that being said, despite the four 100W (well, 26W or whatever) swirley bulbs above my head right now, I still think CFL's are going to be a problem in the future.

In a free society, you can do everything you want as long as you are not infringing on the rights and freedoms of others.

If you want to kill people because it will improve your life, that is taking away their rights and freedoms.

Ooh, some sense from a thread otherwise devoid, and filled with thoughts that harken of the days of East Germany and Iron Curtain Romania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc... all in the name of a "good idea" espoused by government. Oh well, at least it's only the internet... for now...

Jack21222

Oct19-10, 10:36 PM

In a free society, you can do everything you want as long as you are not infringing on the rights and freedoms of others.

If you want to kill people because it will improve your life, that is taking away their rights and freedoms.

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.

CAC1001

Oct19-10, 10:52 PM

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.

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

Office_Shredder

Oct19-10, 10:54 PM

That comment is about a $2,000 bill from an environmental clean up company. It was found that their report was exagerrated.

Why don't people read the articles linked? <pulls hair out>

You said it is well known that CFL lightbulbs contain hazardous quantities of mercury for home use. Your article here:
http://money.usnews.com/money/business-economy/articles/2007/12/19/faq-the-end-of-the-light-bulb-as-we-know-it.html

Nowhere does it say that mercury in light bulbs is a health hazard. It cites a case where someone thought they had to have an environmental team clean up their house, but it turns out later that wasn't really true.

What am I missing, and where is the evidence that CFL light bulbs contain hazardous quantities of mercury for household use?

Evo

Oct19-10, 11:33 PM

You said it is well known that CFL lightbulbs contain hazardous quantities of mercury for home use.No, I didn't. Mu Naught said that mercury was a health hazard and you said you had never heard of that, so I provided you a link to information on mercury in CFL's, if the information on the main page wasn't enough, there were links to additional information.

Yea - these newer bulbs are good from an energy conservation perspective, but they break VERY easily and release poisonous mercury...

It's a health risk as far as I'm concerned.

naught, I've never actually seen a scientific study one way or the other on that, do you have a source?

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

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

Al68

Oct20-10, 12:32 AM

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

Oct20-10, 12:46 AM

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

Oct20-10, 01:15 AM

Al68

Oct20-10, 01:21 AM

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.htmAccording 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

Oct20-10, 01:31 AM

The EPA has recommendations on how to clean up a broken CFL (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. :biggrin:

BobG

Oct20-10, 06:12 AM

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

Oct20-10, 07:12 AM

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

Oct20-10, 07:43 AM

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

Huh? Can you explain, please?

Vanadium 50

Oct20-10, 07:48 AM

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

Oct20-10, 08:07 AM

(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

Oct20-10, 10:28 AM

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

Oct20-10, 10:35 AM

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

Oct20-10, 11:06 AM

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

Oct20-10, 11:36 AM

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.
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.

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

Oct20-10, 12:37 PM

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

Oct20-10, 12:46 PM

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

Oct20-10, 12:48 PM

Fair play lisab, that's brilliant!

Jimmy Snyder

Oct20-10, 01:02 PM

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

Oct20-10, 01:07 PM

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

mheslep

Oct20-10, 02:05 PM

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 "they cling to guns or religion. (http://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/barack-obama-bitter-pennsylvanians-cling-to-guns-or-religion/)"

BobG

Oct20-10, 05:22 PM

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

Oct20-10, 07:23 PM

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

Oct20-10, 07:27 PM

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

Oct20-10, 08:18 PM

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:mad:

CAC1001

Oct20-10, 08:32 PM

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

Oct20-10, 08:37 PM

They had better NOT start messing with my hot water heater:mad:

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

Oct20-10, 08:39 PM

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! :biggrin: And far less important, now that I think about it, is that everyone will be free to buy incandescent bulbs. :tongue:

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

Oct20-10, 08:41 PM

Al68

Oct20-10, 08:46 PM

Jack21222

Oct20-10, 08:52 PM

jimmy was making a joke.

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

Evo

Oct20-10, 08:57 PM

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

Oct20-10, 08:58 PM

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

Oct20-10, 09:06 PM

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 wont 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

Oct20-10, 09:17 PM

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

Oct20-10, 09:51 PM

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

russ_watters

Oct20-10, 10:50 PM

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

Oct20-10, 11:05 PM

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

Oct20-10, 11:50 PM

Vanadium 50

Oct21-10, 02:27 AM

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

Oct21-10, 02:47 AM

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

Neon is the future then I suppose? aha

Jimmy Snyder

Oct21-10, 03:01 AM

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

Oct21-10, 03:26 AM

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

Oct21-10, 07:38 AM

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

Oct21-10, 08:17 AM

I seriously don't understand your point.
This.
It doesn't make sense to me unless they're going to ban candles too.

Barwick

Oct21-10, 09:45 AM

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, lets 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

Oct21-10, 09:58 AM

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

Oct21-10, 10:04 AM

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

Broken glass and mercury vapor?

Al68

Oct21-10, 04:08 PM

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

Oct21-10, 05:34 PM

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. Home Depot recycles burnt out bulbs (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

Oct21-10, 05:39 PM

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

Oct24-10, 03:59 PM

Jevons paradox (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

Oct24-10, 05:24 PM

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

Oct25-10, 06:04 AM

Jevons paradox (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

Oct25-10, 10:00 AM

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

Oct25-10, 11:02 PM

Jevons paradox (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

Oct25-10, 11:08 PM

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

Oct25-10, 11:31 PM

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

Oct25-10, 11:34 PM

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

Oct25-10, 11:41 PM

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

Oct26-10, 09:58 AM

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

Oct26-10, 10:07 AM

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

Oct26-10, 10:13 AM

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

Oct26-10, 10:22 AM

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:
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSDHrSPEyLj2_MkdkeAnTALMlb21Yi9E Tqv0YY7YAzux39nGkM&t=1&usg=__yO51LedNht7FXP_LVIbpkhpoch4=

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

Oct26-10, 10:32 AM

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

Oct26-10, 10:44 AM

What is it that a government should do then?

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

Very very simple.

Kurdt

Oct26-10, 11:08 AM

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

Very very simple.

Thats quite naive.

CAC1001

Oct26-10, 12:15 PM

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

Oct26-10, 12:17 PM

Office_Shredder

Oct26-10, 02:07 PM

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

Oct26-10, 02:13 PM

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.

Link (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf71.html) on nuclear powered desalination.

mheslep

Oct26-10, 06:40 PM

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. Well it is a possible way, and likely a regressive one.
When the price goes up, demand goes downMost of the time, but maybe not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand

JaredJames

Oct26-10, 06:53 PM

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.

Well substitute electrical with whatever the energy requirements are. But regardless, they're rather high.
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.

Do you know how much a nuclear plant costs? This is an additional cost to the original cost of the plant.
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.

Link (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf71.html) on nuclear powered desalination.

Next to carrying fresh water on board in storage tanks large enough for a trip, is there any other way?
For subs it means the only reason to surface is food. For ships and subs it means the requirement to carry huge amounts of water aren't there. It is economically viable to do it in these situations.

Just because they're on subs and ships doesn't make them cheap and doesn't mean they're efficient. They are doing a job because they suit the requirements. As above, the alternatives aren't viable in comparison.

gravenewworld

Oct26-10, 07:09 PM

So what happens to all of the mercury from all of the discarded fluorescent bulbs in the future?

russ_watters

Oct26-10, 07:36 PM

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.
While I agree with the second, I don't think that's the case here, so I don't think the logic applies. Certainly, there are two questions/problems with that reasoning that need to be addressed for it to be valid (and I already mentioned them, but....):

1. The government makes arbitrary/capricious choices about such things, so it would be difficult to argue that this is necessary while at the same time not implimenting better solutions.
2. It would be difficult to make a case that there is an imminent need for this. And #1 helps support this point: if it was imminent, the government wouldn't be so arbitrary/capricious about it.

I'd be very interested in seeing some examples where the goverment has done similar things. I haven't seen one I consider comparable. I gave an example before that I think actually shows how unusual this is:

1. The banning of CFCs. CFCs presented an imminent threat and banning them was the only known way to deal with that threat. That covers both the points above.

I can think of another:

2. Wartime austerity measures. A threat doesn't get any more imminent than a world war and drastic measures need to be taken to conserve certain resources. Again, covering both points above. 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. 3. Water conservation. I'd consider a multi-year drought to be a pretty imminent problem and conservation to be the only viable solution. Again, that passes both tests I outlined, CF lamps don't.

So do you have any examples of precedents where the government didn't use logic that passed both of my tests or alternately can you provide an argument for why the tests are wrong? Ie, why are incandescent lamps an imminent threat? Why is banning them a more important solution than encouraging (even subsidizing) bulding nuclear plants or wind plants, both of which would be both more direct and more successful solutions to the pollution problem.

russ_watters

Oct26-10, 07:38 PM

Thats quite naive. It looks to me like that's the only possible response to such a uselessly vague question.

How about answering the inverse: since the US is a country founded on (among other things), the principle of individual rights, why is banning this product so important that rights should be infringed on and under what precedent would this particular ban be acceptable?

Jack21222

Oct26-10, 07:45 PM

So what happens to all of the mercury from all of the discarded fluorescent bulbs in the future?

Probably the same thing that happens to all of the mercury released into the atmosphere from burning coal.

russ_watters

Oct26-10, 07:46 PM

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.
We could, of course, attack the problem both more directly and more successfully by banning coal plants (or, rather, creating incentives to build nuclear and wind plants) rather than banning incandescent lights.

Kurdt

Oct26-10, 07:54 PM

It looks to me like that's the only possible response to such a uselessly vague question.

How about answering the inverse: since the US is a country founded on (among other things), the principle of individual rights, why is banning this product so important that rights should be infringed on and under what precedent would this particular ban be acceptable?

The question was not uselessly vague. I wanted to know what the posters take on the role of government was. His response is very naive in my opinion.

The only reason an individual in any society has certain rights is up to the ruling body of that society. They are generally in place to maximise the survival capability of said society. It is clear for whatever reason that the US government believes the right to choose between these two types of light bulb is surplus to the requirement that the society of US citizens use one bulb over the other.

JaredJames

Oct26-10, 08:02 PM

The only reason an individual in any society has certain rights is up to the ruling body of that society. They are generally in place to maximise the survival capability of said society. It is clear for whatever reason that the US government believes the right to choose between these two types of light bulb is surplus to the requirement that the society of US citizens use one bulb over the other.

Extremely well said!

Office_Shredder

Oct26-10, 08:02 PM

The only reason an individual in any society has certain rights is up to the ruling body of that society.

So which ruling body in particular gets to choose which rights people have?

Kurdt

Oct26-10, 08:05 PM

So which ruling body in particular gets to choose which rights people have?

In democracies, the one chosen by the people to represent them. In reality there tend to be many. The larger the group of people the more complex the system tends to be.

russ_watters

Oct26-10, 08:06 PM

The question was not uselessly vague. I wanted to know what the posters take on the role of government was. His response is very naive in my opinion. Were you intending him to copy and paste an entire American Government textbook? If the question really wasn't meant to be flip, what sort of answer were you hoping for? In other words, how can the question possibly be answered within the allowable posting size limit on PF? The only reason an individual in any society has certain rights is up to the ruling body of that society. Ehh, not really. The point of the Bill of Rights is that the ruling body (I assume you mean Congress) can't just take away our rights. Those certain rights were defined when the country was founded. In other types of governments, the individual rights are indeed at the whim of the particular ruler, but that's not how the US works. They are generally in place to maximise the survival capability of said society. Ehh, not really, no. The US was founded on a principle that the invidual really is more important than the state. It would be to the state's benefit, for example, for citizens to not be permitted to speak out against the government, for the government to have more freedom in search and seizure, etc. But it is more important to protect then innocent from wrongful prosecution/persecution than to ensure public safety. But even if that were true.... It is clear for whatever reason that the US government believes the right to choose between these two types of light bulb is surplus to the requirement that the society of US citizens use one bulb over the other. Do you believe such decisions should be based on internally consistent logic or do you believe ther government should be allowed to make whatever arbitrary decisions it sees fit?

Evo

Oct26-10, 08:20 PM

Do you believe such decisions should be based on internally consistent logic or do you believe ther government should be allowed to make whatever arbitrary decisions it sees fit?
Do you think that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was an arbitrary government decision and wasn't done because it was the "popular" thing with Americans at the time?

Kurdt

Oct26-10, 08:21 PM

Were you intending him to copy and paste an entire American Government textbook? If the question really wasn't meant to be flip, what sort of answer were you hoping for? In other words, how can the question possibly be answered within the allowable posting size limit on PF?
I was asking what his opinion of the term government was. I was not asking for the whole Government textbook.
Ehh, not really. The point of the Bill of Rights is that the ruling body (I assume you mean Congress) can't just take away our rights. Those certain rights were defined when the country was founded. In other types of governments, the individual rights are indeed at the whim of the particular ruler, but that's not how the US works.Perhaps. But that is how collective groups of people work in general. The bill of rights is only as valid as the society which it describes. Do you really believe it is infallable and not subject to change? Ehh, not really, no. The US was founded on a principle that the invidual really is more important than the state. It would be to the state's benefit, for example, for citizens to not be permitted to speak out against the government, for the government to have more freedom in search and seizure, etc. But it is more important to protect then innocent from wrongful prosecution/persecution than to ensure public safety. But even if that were true.... It would be to the ruling body's benefit but not to the state. The state is made up by the people and while individuals are important, it has to be recognised that there are certain rules that have to be enforced if they're to live together succesfully. Do you believe such decisions should be based on internally consistent logic or do you believe ther government should be allowed to make whatever arbitrary decisions it sees fit?

I don't believe governments should be allowed to make decisions on a whim. That would be ridiculous. All i am saying is that the decision has been made by the people your country elected (whether YOU voted for them or not) to ban that particular item for its perceived benefits to your society.

mheslep

Oct26-10, 08:35 PM

Posting the following is perhaps pedantic for a light bulb ban thread, but it remains such a timely, clear, accurate, and fundamental response to the suggestion that some ruling class creates rights. No, they have always been there, if unsecured and oppressed for most of history.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Evo

Oct26-10, 08:40 PM

mheslep

Oct26-10, 08:44 PM

Rights are granted, rights are taken away. You only the have the rights that the governing body allows.<Sigh> The Declaration does not say that people are endowed by the governing body with certain unalienable Rights.

mheslep

Oct26-10, 08:53 PM

So the government of the US is supposedly representing what the American people want. Since they were duly elected, how can anyone say that the law is arbitrary and against the wishes of Americans? You don't like what the elected politicians are doing, you vote them out.As Russ said

Ehh, not really. The point of the Bill of Rights is that the ruling body (I assume you mean Congress) can't just take away our rights. Those certain rights were defined when the country was founded

I.e. duly elected or not there are certain rights representatives may not oppress. If they are heedless of these rights, perhaps because they are in a the majority or for other reasons, then see the next clause in that line:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

Never fear though, because in the next sentence
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;
Light bulb bans surely qualify as light causes.

Evo

Oct26-10, 09:02 PM

As Russ said

I.e. duly elected or not there are certain rights representatives may not oppress. If they are heedless of these rights, perhaps because they are in a the majority or for other reasons, then see the next clause in that line:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

Never fear though, because in the next sentence
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;
Light bulb bans surely qualify as light causes.You really think that this law was passed against the wishes of the American public?

What is amazing is how many people in this thread had no idea this law was passed over 3 years ago.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub.L. 110-140[1] originally named the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007) is an Act of Congress concerning the energy policy of the United States. As part of the Democratic Party's 100-Hour Plan during the 110th Congress[2], it was introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Representative Nick Rahall of West Virginia, along with 198 cosponsors. Despite Rahall becoming 1 of only 4 Democrats to oppose the final bill[3], it passed in the House without amendment in January 2007. When the Act was introduced in the Senate in June 2007, it was combined with Senate Bill S. 1419: Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007.[4] This amended version passed the Senate on June 21, 2007.[5][6] After further amendments and negotiation between the House and Senate, a revised bill passed both houses on December 18, 2007[7] and President Bush, a Republican, signed it into law on December 19, 2007 in response to his "Twenty in Ten" challenge to reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years.[8]

The stated purpose of the act is “to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.”.

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

Have you read the entire Act?

http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=IssueItems.Detail&IssueItem_ID=f10ca3dd-fabd-4900-aa9d-c19de47df2da&Month=12&Year=2007

Jasongreat

Oct26-10, 09:05 PM

Maybe the 'father of the US constitution' could shed some light:

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands;they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
Prior to that, in Federalist 41, Madison wrote,

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.”

Office_Shredder

Oct26-10, 09:15 PM

You really think that this law was passed against the wishes of the American public?

It doesn't matter if the American people wanted it. The Constitution doesn't get to be ignored just because 51% of the population wants a bill to be passed

Evo

Oct26-10, 09:19 PM

It doesn't matter if the American people wanted it. The Constitution doesn't get to be ignored just because 51% of the population wants a bill to be passedDid you read the act?

I think the knee jerk reaction due to the "save the planet" craze was wrong. I've also said I don't agree with the ban, but I don't see it as being unconstitutional the way it was written. I also have searched extensively online and really haven't found an uproar over this anywhere, but that could just be that the majority of the US is ignorant of the ban.

mheslep

Oct26-10, 09:30 PM

You really think that this law was passed against the wishes of the American public?It certainly could be so. We don't have a government by referendum on every issue. We have representatives with their own parochial interests, just as we all have. Perhaps the ones in office at the time got there because of the electorates' view on the Iraq war, abortion, etc, bu those representatives could be completely counter to the electoral majority on other issues such as this one. See Public Choice Theory.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory

E.g.

It has been recognized at least since the time of the Marquis de Condorcet (1785) that voting among three or more candidates or alternatives may fail to select the majority’s most preferred outcome or may be prone to vote “cycles” producing no clear winner.1 Indeed, Kenneth Arrow’s “impossibility theorem” shows that there is no mechanism for making collective choices, other than dictatorship, that translates the preferences of diverse individuals into a well-behaved social utility function. Nor has any electoral rule been found whose results cannot be manipulated either by individuals voting insincerely—that is, casting their ballots strategically for less-preferred candidates or issues in order to block even worse outcomes—or by an agenda setter who controls the order in which votes are taken.

Evo

Oct26-10, 09:34 PM

It certainly could be so. We don't have a government by referendum on every issue. We have representatives with their own parochial interests. Perhaps the ones in office at the time got there because of the electorates view on the Iraq war, abortion, etc, bu those reps could be completely counter to the electoral majority on other issues. See Public Choice Theory.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory

E.g.Well, I think the stuff will hit the fan in a few years when people go to buy bulbs and can't find them. People need to be careful what they wish for. Politicians jumped on that bandwagon because it was popular and we can see what the results are. But, nooo, no one listened to me when I said I was afraid of what kind of stupid things would be done if they weren't thought through.

It's not a phasing out of all incandescent bulbs though. I have those specialty decorative globe bulbs in my bathrooms, that's the type of bulbs it's designed for, anything else will look wrong. I don't know what is supposed to replace those.

Vanadium 50

Oct26-10, 09:42 PM

There are globe fluorescents. From first hand experience, let me tell you, they are awful.

Evo

Oct26-10, 09:50 PM

There are globe fluorescents. From first hand experience, let me tell you, they are awful.Gee, thanks. :frown:

I guess I know what I'll be stocking up on.

Upisoft

Oct26-10, 09:54 PM

I don't know why they make these things work at 40kHz. My cat can hear it and is quite annoyed when the only CFL we had is turned on. Luckily it is in place where it is not required to be lit often.

Office_Shredder

Oct26-10, 09:56 PM

It's not a phasing out of all incandescent bulbs though. I have those specialty decorative globe bulbs in my bathrooms, that's the type of bulbs it's designed for, anything else will look wrong. I don't know what is supposed to replace those.

Various specialty bulbs, including appliance bulbs, colored lights, and 3-way bulbs, are exempt from these requirements.

You should find out if they're actually going to be banned

mheslep

Oct26-10, 09:58 PM

CAC1001

Oct26-10, 11:44 PM

Rights are granted, rights are taken away. You only the have the rights that the governing body allows. As kurdt said the ruling body

One thing to remember with America is that while government can take people's rights away, those who do things like murder, rape, robbery, etc...rights are otherwise granted at birth by our Creator. They are not granted by the government or the Constitution.

On this ban, I found out about it just recently, yet as you said, it was passed three years ago. A lot of people are totally unaware of it.

You really think that this law was passed against the wishes of the American public?

Look at Obamacare.

CAC1001

Oct26-10, 11:45 PM

Candles? :frown:

Hopefully the crap will hit the fan enough as Evo said that the ban will get reversed.

Evo

Oct26-10, 11:54 PM

Candles? :frown:LOL. I can change the fixtures into candleholders.

Argentum Vulpes

Oct27-10, 12:44 AM

Well substitute electrical with whatever the energy requirements are. But regardless, they're rather high.

Do you know how much a nuclear plant costs? This is an additional cost to the original cost of the plant.

Yes I do know, however the reason for the high cost is artificial. The fault is because of delays (from lawsuits), politicians and unnecessary ratcheting of safety regulation measures. Link (http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/index.html)

Next to carrying fresh water on board in storage tanks large enough for a trip, is there any other way?
For subs it means the only reason to surface is food. For ships and subs it means the requirement to carry huge amounts of water aren't there. It is economically viable to do it in these situations.

Just because they're on subs and ships doesn't make them cheap and doesn't mean they're efficient. They are doing a job because they suit the requirements. As above, the alternatives aren't viable in comparison.

I was pointing out that there are hybrid systems (fresh water/propulsion/electrical load) have been built and do work, also I gave several examples of land based systems that are or have worked.

Not viable? Given the average world cost of 70 to 90 cents per m^3 (USD) at the high end this is cheaper then the US average water cost. Again a hybrid plant on the coast will solve two big problems with one plant, and several other problems.

US water data (http://www.bv.com/Downloads/Resources/Brochures/rsrc_EMS_Top50RateSurvey.pdf)

Argentum Vulpes

Oct27-10, 12:50 AM

LOL. I can change the fixtures into candleholders.

Why not switch to a natural gas (http://gas-lights.com/interior.html) fixture?

Kurdt

Oct27-10, 05:21 AM

loseyourname

Oct27-10, 01:39 PM

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

Oct27-10, 11:19 PM

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

Oct27-10, 11:36 PM

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

Oct28-10, 05:36 PM

BobG

Oct28-10, 08:36 PM

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

Nov18-10, 03:15 AM

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

Nov18-10, 03:25 AM

In Egypt CFLs are used almost exclusively

TopuLEDlight

Nov18-10, 07:13 PM

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

Nov18-10, 10:33 PM

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

Nov19-10, 06:04 AM

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

Nov19-10, 08:33 AM

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! :grumpy:

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! :grumpy:

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

Enlilninlil

Nov23-10, 08:21 PM

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

Nov23-10, 08:54 PM

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

Nov23-10, 11:00 PM

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

Mar10-11, 10:10 AM

m k

Mar10-11, 01:20 PM

(not read anything)

What is a HEATBALL (https://www.heatball.de/en/index.php)

nismaratwork

Mar10-11, 08:31 PM

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

May18-11, 11:08 PM

(not read anything)

What is a HEATBALL (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

May19-11, 09:10 AM

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

Evo

May19-11, 01:36 PM

I think they will always have to be available for use in ovens and freezers...Specialty bulbs are exempt from the ban.

Newai

May24-11, 06:43 AM

(not read anything)

What is a HEATBALL (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

May24-11, 07:03 AM

I love this stuff. From the link:

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

Chinese factory owners?

Evo

May24-11, 06:02 PM

Off topic post and responses have been deleted.

Skins

May30-11, 02:07 AM

russ_watters

May30-11, 05:06 PM

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

May30-11, 05:15 PM

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

Jun3-11, 11:19 AM

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

Jun3-11, 11:55 AM

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#Incan descent_lights

The entire Act

http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=IssueItems.Detail&IssueItem_ID=f10ca3dd-fabd-4900-aa9d-c19de47df2da&Month=12&Year=2007

ttmark

Jun3-11, 01:10 PM

Not as they are today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007#Incan descent_lights

The entire Act

http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=IssueItems.Detail&IssueItem_ID=f10ca3dd-fabd-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

Jun3-11, 01:12 PM

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

Jun4-11, 07:09 PM

fluidistic

Jun4-11, 07:22 PM

edward

Jun4-11, 10:16 PM

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

Jun4-11, 10:27 PM

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

Jun4-11, 10:34 PM

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.

Opus_723

Jul15-11, 04:56 PM

I don't agree with banning incandescents. Energy inefficiency doesn't hurt anyone by itself, it's the pollution from the power plant that does. The government should regulate that, not ban specific technologies.

Evo

Jul15-11, 04:58 PM

Opus_723

Jul15-11, 05:09 PM

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. I'm something of an environmentalist myself. Nothing wrong with the end, it's just the means I don't agree with. Just because I agree with them about regulating pollution doesn't mean I agree with banning incandescent light bulbs.

mheslep

Jul15-11, 05:14 PM

There has been some resistance to the energy efficiency Borg, I am happy to see:

I'm all for energy conservation. But [...] You come instead with fines, threats of jail, you put people out of business ... This is what your energy efficiency standards are. Call it what it is.
zvl961uDoEg

Opus_723

Jul15-11, 06:29 PM

Also, while I'm opposed to the law, I should point out that it's not technically a ban. It simply requires an improvement in efficiency that most incandescents can't achieve. Some can. So there will still be incandescents on the market. Probably not nearly as many though.

dlgoff

Jul15-11, 06:37 PM

... I should point out that it's not technically a ban. It simply requires an improvement in efficiency that most incandescents can't achieve. Some can. ...
Yep. Lower wattage and less light will work. But I'm still in favor of CFLs even with their drawbacks.

talk2glenn

Jul15-11, 06:59 PM

Also, while I'm opposed to the law, I should point out that it's not technically a ban.

How do you define a ban, exactly?

Or, put another way, how would you finish this sentence: the law BLANK the sale of light bulbs that don't meet minimum energy efficiency standards.

A. Encourages
B. Discourages
C. Talks about
D. Taxes
E. Bans

What the law doesn't do is ban the sale of all incandescent bulbs, granted. But is most certainly is a ban on the sale of light bulbs that use more than an allowed wattage. Technically.

Opus_723

Jul18-11, 11:41 PM

Yeah. You got me. Technically.

Sure, you can call an efficiency requirement a ban. Whatever floats your boat. I only meant to point out that it doesn't ban incandescents specifically. I apologize for my poor word choice. I have shamed my family.

GODISMYSHADOW

Aug17-11, 02:42 PM

Yep. Lower wattage and less light will work. But I'm still in favor of CFLs even with their drawbacks.

The CFLs don't always last seven years like it says on the package. Some of mine were gone in a month. A couple were smoking when they went out. I suspect the market is being flooded with the cheapest chinese clones.

skippy1729

Aug17-11, 03:10 PM

The vast majority of Americans will pay no attention to this until they go to the store next year and discover the unavailability of the bulbs they want. I predict increased sales of "Change your leaders, not your light bulbs" T-shirts next year.

Skippy

mheslep

Oct22-11, 02:22 PM

The CFLs don't always last [...] like it says on the package.... Same is true for incandescents. And everything else.

Evo

Oct22-11, 02:25 PM

Same is true for incandescents. And everything else.Was this post prompted by the thread asking how many forum members does it take to change a light bulb?

mheslep

Oct22-11, 02:28 PM

Was this post prompted by the thread asking how many forum members does it take to change a light bulb?Eh? No, but I'd love to see that thread?

Edit: Har, found it.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=25663&highlight=forum+members+change+light+bulb%3F

As this thread is aged I'm guilty of the last one in the list (at least)

Evo

Oct22-11, 02:46 PM

Eh? No, but I'd love to see that thread?

Edit: Har, found it.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=25663&highlight=forum+members+change+light+bulb%3F

As this thread is aged I'm guilty of the last one in the list (at least)
Oooh, I think this deserves a write up in the "Flukey or Spooky" thread in S&D!

Naty1

Oct22-11, 02:51 PM

I suspect the market is being flooded with the cheapest chinese clones.

That's where Jeff Immelt (GE) moved the manufacturing for CFL's when he closed down US incandescent manufacturing. He's Obama's Job Czar.

Proton Soup

Oct22-11, 03:48 PM

Same is true for incandescents. And everything else.

this has not been my experience. CFLs have been much worse.

DoggerDan

Oct23-11, 05:45 PM

russ_watters

Oct23-11, 08:36 PM

this has not been my experience. CFLs have been much worse. I wouldn't say I've seen many not "lasting". Their lifespans are supposed to be on the order of 10,000 hours, so if they burn out before a year, they are just plain duds. And I've had an unreasonably high fraction of duds -- 20-30% would be my guess.

....but I have seen a few not "lasting". Based on the condition of the casings, I'd say mostly due to overheating in enclosed fixtures.

MarcoD

Oct24-11, 04:45 AM

Meanwhile, I am reading this thread and still hoping for an opinion on led lights, seems that they don't have a better lm/W ratio, but offer lifetimes up to 50kHr. Anyone tried this for house lighting?

CAC1001

Oct29-11, 01:09 AM

When I switched to CFLs a few years ago, most were horrible! The hues themselves made me feel sick to the pit of my stomach, and I switched back.

More recently, I tried them again, and was happy to find some brands and selections that are nearly indistinguishable from my incandescent bulbs. The only locations I'm still using incandescent bulbs are the spots in my kitchen, a flood in my dining room, and another flood in the entrance way.

There are CFL spots/floods, but I'm not enjoying the colors available. Hopefully, improvements are around the corner.

From what I've read, you can get CFLs now that work about as good as incandescents now, the thing is that they cost a lot more at the moment. Same with LEDs. You can also buy high-efficiency incandescents that meet the new standards, but again, they cost a lot more. On CFLs, I personally hate the twisty shape of them. They have them with a regular bulb covering, but these are just twisty bulbs with a covering over the twisty part (you can see the twisty part through the covering).

mheslep

Oct29-11, 07:33 PM

Well a halogen incandescent costs maybe 2 or 3X more than a regular incandescent of similar lumens, while an LED costs maybe 25X more.

IMP

Dec16-11, 03:51 PM

This may have just been overturned:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/16/congress-overturns-incandescent-light-bulb-ban/

Evo

Dec16-11, 03:58 PM

This may have just been overturned:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/16/congress-overturns-incandescent-light-bulb-ban/
A sign of the times, that lightbulb bill was pushed through by environmental groups, who seem to have lost their power now.

skippy1729

Dec16-11, 04:29 PM

Well, the last American light bulb factory has already been shut down. Good job, environmentalists!

Skippy

IMP

Dec16-11, 04:39 PM

I personally only have two incandescent lights left in my entire home: one in the oven and one in the freezer. I have CFL or LED in all other places and I love them. I won't go back to incandescent myself.

CAC1001

Dec17-11, 12:41 PM

CAC1001

Dec18-11, 04:07 AM

Here is a really interesting website on this: http://ceolas.net/#li001x

ThomasT

Dec18-11, 03:31 PM

I have read (although I have no proof at the moment) that the environmentalists were not the only ones that wanted to kill the conventional incandescent, but the big lightbulb companies such as GE and Phillips. Apparently, they lobbied heaivly for increasing the lightbulb standards so that they could make more profit, as the conventional incandescents are so cheap, that the profit margins on them are very slim.

What gets me are the folks (and the companies and manufacturing groups) criticizing the delay in eforcement, claiming it is "taking away" more efficient bulbs from consumers and that the American people want the more efficient bulbs...!? If that's the case, then why are the new regulations needed at all? If there is truly demand and desire for the more costly, but (supposedly) more efficient bulbs, then no regulations would be needed at all, people would just buy them.Banning cheap incandescent bulbs doesn't make much sense, imo, unless one factors in the interests of the giant manufacturers. Then it makes sense, imo.

The (much) cheaper bulbs marked for banning last quite long enough in my experience, and I think they're better for the eyes than flourescents. So, my reaction to the government action (ie., requiring me to buy more expensive flourescent bulbs), which seems predicated on decreasing competition and increasing profits for the big manufacturers, is to stockpile the cheaper incandescent bulbs while I can.