Incandescent Light Bulbs to Start Being Phased Out in 2012

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter CAC1001
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the government's decision to phase out incandescent light bulbs in favor of compact fluorescent bulbs, starting in 2012. Participants explore the implications of this mandate, questioning the rationale behind regulating consumer choices based on energy efficiency and discussing potential slippery slopes regarding government intervention in other products.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the government's authority to mandate specific consumer products, comparing it to regulations on lead-free paint and unleaded petrol.
  • Concerns are raised about the efficiency argument for banning incandescent bulbs, with some arguing that it does not justify such regulation since the bulbs are not inherently dangerous.
  • Others highlight the potential dangers of widespread use of inefficient lighting, suggesting that the cumulative effect of energy waste could pose a risk to the community.
  • Participants express dissatisfaction with the aesthetics of compact fluorescent bulbs compared to traditional incandescent bulbs.
  • Some argue that the government could extend its regulatory power to other products, such as SUVs and fast food, based on similar efficiency or health arguments.
  • There are calls for improvements in the technology of energy-efficient bulbs to better mimic the light quality of incandescent bulbs.
  • One participant suggests that if energy-efficient bulbs were proven to be significantly cheaper and longer-lasting, they might support a ban on incandescent bulbs.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions, with no clear consensus on the appropriateness of the government's mandate or the implications of such regulations. Disagreement exists regarding the justification for banning incandescent bulbs based on energy efficiency and the potential dangers of inefficient lighting.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various examples of government regulations and their implications, but the discussion remains speculative regarding the broader consequences of phasing out incandescent bulbs.

  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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

Undergrad Do light bulbs or convection heaters heat a room with the highest efficiency?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
12K