News Incandescent Light Bulbs to Start Being Phased Out in 2012

[Ben Niehoff]

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]

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]

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

 

[mheslep]

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.

Wiki has some energy breakouts for the US, which mixes electric usage w/ all energy usage. I haven't checked the Wiki references, but this looks correct. Distributed electricity only is about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USEnFlow02-quads.gif"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Current_consumption" is
32% space heating
13% water heating
12% lighting
11% air conditioning
8% refrigeration
5% electronics
5% wet-clean (mostly clothes dryers)

Deduct much of space and water heating, which is largely gas heat, to leave just electric use above.

Then physicist D. McCay has an online book detailing energy usage (all types) in the UK. He tallies about 195 kWh/day/person for all energy consumption - heat, lighting, transportation, etc. Of that, about 5 kWh/day/person goes to lighting - all lighting everywhere in the country - residential, office, street, etc. Usage is shown in red on the left based on data. Possible energy sources (conjecture) shown in green on the left.

 

[Barwick]

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#Opposition_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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Did I miss anything?

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

 

[Barwick]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[mheslep]

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?

 

[Kurdt]

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.

 

[Jack21222]

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]

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.

 

[Jack21222]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Mu naught]

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]

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.