Incandescent Light Bulbs to Start Being Phased Out in 2012

  • News
  • Thread starter CAC1001
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Light
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. The reasoning for the light bulb ban is that they are inefficient and use too much energy. The government could also potentially ban other products, such as SUVs, pickups, and big-screen TVs, using the same argument. Some people may not want to use more efficient bulbs for various reasons, such as appearance or practicality in certain situations. However, the government's reasoning for the ban is based on the fact that incandescent bulbs are inefficient and use too much energy. It remains to be seen if this ban will create
  • #71
Gokul43201 said:
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #73
jarednjames said:
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

Barkwick said:
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
 
  • #74
Evo said:
Did I miss anything?

Cons:
Non-thermal spectrum and flickering. Described as unnatural light. It gives me a headache in no time.
 
  • #75
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #76
Office_Shredder said:
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.
 
  • #77
jarednjames said:
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
 
  • #78
jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #79
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
 
  • #80
IMP said:
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
That's good, but there is no requirement to use CFL's, you can buy halogen, LED, and incandescents not on the phase out list.
 
  • #81
IMP said:
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

Thanks. How did folks miss "Costs more up front" (4x more) on the first pass?
 
Last edited:
  • #82
Barwick said:
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:
 
  • #83
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.
 
  • #84
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.
 
  • #85
jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #86
Jack21222 said:
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).
 
  • #87
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.
 
  • #88
naught, I've never actually seen a scientific study one way or the other on that, do you have a source?
 
  • #89
Office_Shredder said:
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?
 
  • #90
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.
 
  • #91
Office_Shredder said:
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/busin...-the-end-of-the-light-bulb-as-we-know-it.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #92
Evo said:
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).
 
  • #93
Evo said:
It's well known OS.

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

and
http://money.usnews.com/money/busin...-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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #94
jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #95
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #96
jarednjames said:
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.

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.
 
  • #97
CAC1001 said:
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?
 
  • #98
Office_Shredder said:
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 home
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>
 
  • #99
Well I just mean it seems like the environmental agencies are blowing it out of proportion a bit.
 
  • #100
CAC1001 said:
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.
 
  • #101
Evo said:
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.

CAC1001 said:
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...
 
  • #102
CAC1001 said:
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.
 
  • #103
Jack21222 said:
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.
 
  • #104
Evo said:
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/busin...-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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #105
Office_Shredder said:
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.

Mu naught said:
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 said:
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
 

Similar threads

Do light bulbs or convection heaters heat a room with the highest efficiency?
    • Thermodynamics
Replies
13
Views
11K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top