News Incandescent Light Bulbs to Start Being Phased Out in 2012

  • Thread starter Thread starter CAC1001
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the government's decision to phase out incandescent light bulbs in favor of compact fluorescent bulbs due to energy efficiency concerns. Participants question the legitimacy of government mandates on consumer products, suggesting it could lead to broader restrictions on various items, such as SUVs and large electronics. Concerns are raised about the aesthetics and practicality of CFLs compared to traditional bulbs, including issues with visibility in traffic lights during winter. There is a debate over whether the government should intervene in consumer choices for the sake of efficiency, with some arguing that such regulations infringe on personal freedom. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the tension between energy efficiency initiatives and individual consumer rights.
  • #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

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