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
  • #246
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #247
Opus_723 said:
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.
It was done because of lobbying by *green* environmental groups.
 
  • #248
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.
 
  • #249
There has been some resistance to the energy efficiency Borg, I am happy to see:

Sen Paul said:
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvl961uDoEg
 
Last edited:
  • #250
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.
 
  • #251
Opus_723 said:
... 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.
 
  • #252
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.
 
  • #253
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.
 
  • #254
dlgoff said:
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.
 
  • #255
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
 
  • #256
GODISMYSHADOW said:
The CFLs don't always last [...] like it says on the package...
Same is true for incandescents. And everything else.
 
  • #257
mheslep said:
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?
 
  • #260
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.
 
  • #261
mheslep said:
Same is true for incandescents. And everything else.

this has not been my experience. CFLs have been much worse.
 
  • #262
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.
 
  • #263
Proton Soup said:
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.
 
  • #264
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?
 
  • #265
DoggerDan said:
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).
 
  • #266
Well a halogen incandescent costs maybe 2 or 3X more than a regular incandescent of similar lumens, while an LED costs maybe 25X more.
 
  • #269
Well, the last American light bulb factory has already been shut down. Good job, environmentalists!

Skippy
 
  • #270
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.
 
  • #271
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.
 
  • #273
CAC1001 said:
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.
 
  • #274
G.E. has already closed down operations here and moved their CFL production to China.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-08-28/green_sheet/30003252_1_compact-fluorescent-bulbs-mercury-plant
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #275
edward said:
G.E. has already closed down operations here and moved their CFL production to China.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-08-28/green_sheet/30003252_1_compact-fluorescent-bulbs-mercury-plant
That's good for GE, but bad for America, imho.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

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