News Incandescent Light Bulbs to Start Being Phased Out in 2012

[lisab]

In the future, instead of getting fantastic, mind-blowing-brilliant ideas in a sudden flash, people will begin to get dim, vague notions which will strengthen slowly over time. Patience will be required to wait on ideas to build up a bit. Sure, eventually, ideas will be be as bright as they used to be, but they will never have that same wonderful A-HA! feeling.

I think I'm going to miss the old days.

 

[JaredJames]

Fair play lisab, that's brilliant!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

In the future, instead of getting fantastic, mind-blowing-brilliant ideas in a sudden flash, people will begin to get dim, vague notions which will strengthen slowly over time.

I don't get it. Oh!

 

[Kurdt]

Don't worry. We'll all be using LED natural lights soon enough.

 

[mheslep]

Not entirely 100% the way the libertarian-minded would prefer, but still very close.

Close? I suggest practically every aspect of modern life is considered fair game for restriction and regulation, as the would be restricters and regulators can (and do) make arguments that your every action impacts them through impacts on the environment, national security, etc, the argument having grown so fantastic now that it is a thin veil for totalitarian intentions. I suppose this is an easy position to take if one sees many of his fellow citizens as as misguided "bitter" rubes requiring control by their betters as otherwise "http://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/barack-obama-bitter-pennsylvanians-cling-to-guns-or-religion/" "

 

[BobG]

You mean like what happened when they put politicians in our showers?

http://mises.org/daily/2007

I hope that's the right article, I can't get to the site right now, but basically when they restricted shower heads to an incredibly low flow rate (ever take a shower in an old house, where you have water pressure that'll actually blow all that shampoo right out of your hair?), people got pissed, and some companies skirted the absurd law by making a shower head with 3 heads, so it'll flow the same amount of water you used to have, and you can leave the shower actually feeling like you got clean again.

They missed the boat by limiting the flow of shower heads. The real water waste occurs when people take longer showers. Instead of limiting the flow of water, they should have limited the capacity of water heaters and/or limited the temperature of water heater.

Limiting the temperature means people will have to limit how much cold water is mixed in the shower flow, reducing overall flow. Limiting the capacity limits how long a person(s) can shower before the hot water is gone, making further showering rather undesirable.

Or, if they really wanted to save water, they could have banned outdoor water outlets and sprinkler systems. People could only grow grass, trees, and flowers in their yard if they lived in a region where grass, trees, and flowers naturally grew.

Likewise, if legislators really want to save energy on lighting, they should implement double-dog daylight savings time for the summer. Daylight savings time works well in the Spring and Fall, but a lot of daylight is wasted before anyone is up to enjoy them. Double dog daylight savings time for the Summer months would eliminate an hour of artificial lighting time in the evening.

 

[Jack21222]

Lumen for lumen, candles create far more greenhouse gasses than incandescent bulbs. So why does the govt go after one and not the other? The powerful candle industry lobby.

How many people do you know use candles to light their house?

My mother uses candles all the time, but not to light the room like a light bulb. She does it for the scent and a faint light. Therefore, "lumen for lumen" is a terrible way to compare the two.

 

[Evo]

How many people do you know use candles to light their house?

My mother uses candles all the time, but not to light the room like a light bulb. She does it for the scent and a faint light. Therefore, "lumen for lumen" is a terrible way to compare the two.

jimmy was making a joke.

 

[CAC1001]

They missed the boat by limiting the flow of shower heads. The real water waste occurs when people take longer showers. Instead of limiting the flow of water, they should have limited the capacity of water heaters and/or limited the temperature of water heater.

Limiting the temperature means people will have to limit how much cold water is mixed in the shower flow, reducing overall flow. Limiting the capacity limits how long a person(s) can shower before the hot water is gone, making further showering rather undesirable.

Or, if they really wanted to save water, they could have banned outdoor water outlets and sprinkler systems. People could only grow grass, trees, and flowers in their yard if they lived in a region where grass, trees, and flowers naturally grew.

Likewise, if legislators really want to save energy on lighting, they should implement double-dog daylight savings time for the summer. Daylight savings time works well in the Spring and Fall, but a lot of daylight is wasted before anyone is up to enjoy them. Double dog daylight savings time for the Summer months would eliminate an hour of artificial lighting time in the evening.

They had better NOT start messing with my hot water heater

 

[CAC1001]

Either way, the public would be forced to purchase the new product, whether via the government or privately. They key here is that the government aren't going around houses forcing people to change them or else. They are simply preventing the sale by manufacturers.

Irregardless, they are preventing the sale of a product many want.

If people are that concerned, why don't they just go out and buy as many incandescents as they can? If you're going to need them in the future, why not just get them all now? Same cost there or there abouts.

I don't have the $$$ to stock up on a supply of incandescents to last for years, nor the room.

Is it really? No reason whatsoever?

Perhaps there's a more profitable/new/better product they want to push, to do this they stop selling the old one?

No company does that. What they might do is introduce the more profitable/new/better product and see how it sells. That doesn't mean people are going to want it.

For some reason here though, people don't care that the new bulbs could save energy,

Yes, could is a key word.

all people care about is that the government want them to buy them. Damn government trying to save a bit of energy, what are they thinking?

Yes, who are the government to tell us what to buy? It really is none of their business. Especially when the alternative product (s) has issues many don't like.

As mentioned by mheslep, there's a fine line here, because any regulation can be justified if you argue it affects the environment, national security, etc...

People are just being stubborn. "I don't care about efficiency, becaues the government is telling me to buy them I don't want to."

No they are not. People don't want to have to buy the government-mandated alternatives because they have a lot of issues people don't like (time to light up, lack of heat, ambience, cost, etc...).

Be honest, if all the companies only sold CFL's as of tomorrow, by their own choice, what would you all say then?
This is what the effect will be once this regulation kicks in. The only difference is who's causing it.

You're wrong. Because if all the companies only sold CFLs as of tomorrow, someone would start a company making incandescents, and would likely find a large enough demand that the company would be profitable and become sizeable pretty quickly.

With the regulation, it becomes illegal for companies to make incandescents anymore (unless maybe someone tries doing what that guy in Europe did, re-designating them as heaters).

 

[WhoWee]

They had better NOT start messing with my hot water heater

Don't take any chances - get a big gas fired on-demand water heater. I like the commercial/car wash models for whole house applications.

 

[Al68]

Either way, the public would be forced to purchase the new product, whether via the government or privately.

No. Your second scenario is identical to the actual scenario in reality over the last 100 years, ie people are free to buy and sell incandescent bulbs as they please. The result of not using force is that they will be sold.

Seriously, your second "scenario" is like saying "what if everyone just inexplicably decided to stop selling alcohol even though it's completely legal?", and claiming that's identical to prohibition. First, it wouldn't happen, and second, it wouldn't be the same situation even if it did.

Be honest, if all the companies only sold CFL's as of tomorrow, by their own choice, what would you all say then?

I would personally start an incandescent bulb business to sell them to everyone in the U.S. who wanted one. Do you really think every business in the country would just sit back and let me have 100% of the market share? How rich would I get if everyone else just inexplicably declined to sell them, so that I had a de facto monopoly? How inexplicable would it be that out of 300 million people, not a single one (besides me) is interested in billions of dollars?

This is what the effect will be once this regulation kicks in. The only difference is who's causing it.

No, the effect of not using force is that they will be sold. And the difference is, I will become a billionaire! And far less important, now that I think about it, is that everyone will be free to buy incandescent bulbs.

Seriously, the following two things are mutually contradictory, as evidenced by both simple logic and the fact that they have never happened in the history of the human race:

1. A product is in demand and profitable and no force is used to prevent its manufacture or sale.
2. The product is not being sold.

 

[Evo]

So, is everyone that is against the ban against the environmentalists that pushed this legislation to save the planet as part of a popular cause back then? I'm really curious if on one hand you support that movement, as long as it doesn't interfere with you personally, or if it is simply something that has never concerned you.

There are supposed to be tremendous benefits, not only to the planet, but if you pay electric bills, you're supposed to see a reduction in your bills, but I don't see anyone addressing the benefits. This makes me really curious.

 

[Al68]

So, is everyone that is against the ban against the environmentalists that pushed this legislation to save the planet as part of a popular cause back then? I'm really curious if on one hand you support that movement, as long as it doesn't interfere with you personally.

I want to know if everyone who favors the ban is against the environmentalists who have been trying to save the planet by reducing mercury use, by opposing this ban. Do you support the movement against putting more mercury in little childrens' homes, as long as it doesn't interfere with you personally by preventing you from saving money on your electric bill to buy more Big Macs?

 

[Jack21222]

jimmy was making a joke.

I should hope so. I thought that might have been the case, but you never know around here.

 

[Evo]

I want to know if everyone who favors the ban is against the environmentalists who have been trying to save the planet by reducing mercury use, by opposing this ban. Do you support the movement against putting more mercury in little childrens' homes, as long as it doesn't interfere with you personally by preventing you from saving money on your electric bill to buy more Big Macs?

Did you know that you don't have to buy CFL's, so mercury isn't an issue?

 

[CAC1001]

So, is everyone that is against the ban against the environmentalists that pushed this legislation to save the planet as part of a popular cause back then?

Well I do not like environmentalists that want to ram new forms of anything down my throat under the guise of "saving the planet." These are the people who want us all to eat soy and have cattle banned due to their methane emissions, thus causing (supposedly) global climate change.

I'm really curious if on one hand you support that movement, as long as it doesn't interfere with you personally, or if it is simply something that has never concerned you.

I support what you could call reasonable environmentalism, as the movement can get taken to an extreme to justify regulation of everything and anything (not too long ago the EPA considered regulating water like it is attempting to CO2 emissions b/c water is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2!).

There are supposed to be tremendous benefits, not only to the planet, but if you pay electric bills, you're supposed to see a reduction in your bills, but I don't see anyone addressing the benefits. This makes me really curious.

If these benefits are so good, then there wouldn't be any need for the government to ban incandescents, they'll go away on their own, via market forces. People will buy the superior product.

People always buy the superior product that they can afford, the problem is just that what the people consider superior is not always what the government does. A random person might consider a Chevrolet Tahoe superior to a Toyota Camry because it is roomier, bigger, higher up, etc...they can afford it, so they don't mind the extra cost or the extra fuel costs.

To a bureaucrat who only measures which vehicle is "better" by fuel efficiency, however, the people are purchasing the "worse" vehicle, ignoring the "benefits" of the smaller vehicle. That's because the people like the benefits of the bigger vehicle over the benefits of the smaller vehicle.

Incandescents I see as the same. People don't purchase a literally worse product. It's that people prefer the benefits of the incandescents over the benefits of the alternatives right now. According to bureaucrats though, the people are buying the "worse" product, so they need to be forced to buy the more "beneficial" product.

 

[Evo]

BTW, I'm not for the ban. As I said previously, I hate CFL's I have some for the ceiling fans because they are a pain to replace and I wanted something that wouldn't need to be replaced for several years. I might buy halogen lights, but I only use 60 watt lights and they won't be banned for several years, I'll wait to see what technology is around, or if there is still a ban then.

I made the mistake of replacing my outdoor lights for the same reasons and had to take them out, I didn't realize they don't work in sub freezing temperatures. After 20 minutes of warming, you have light equivalent to a matchstick. No good when you drive up to the house and the lights don't turn on.

 

[russ_watters]

This is a complicated problem. I saw little bits of pros and cons of CFs in the first few pages, but not a full list and some arguments that were a little weak on logic for and against. I think it is important to deal with the full list to get a clear picture of just how unclear the issue is. I'll try to present both sides (note: when I moved into my house 4 years ago, I replaced every incandescent with a CF - about 40 of them):

The pros for CFs over incandescents, with some explanation, are:
1. Lower energy usage for the same light (typically about 1/5).
2. Less heat output, which causes a secondary effect of reducing heating and cooling energy and cost. I've heard the lower heat output being implied as a negative for cool climates, but it isn't, it just isn't as much of a positive. Electric resistance heating is typically the most expensive common way to make heat and the power company burns more fuel to make the electricity to make the heat than you would burning the fuel to make heat. Won't damage fixtures or burn you like an incandescent might.
3. Economic stimulus.

Cons of CFs vs Incandescents.
1. Poorer quality light. Someone earler said they produce better light - I'd never heard that before and the light quality is a very commonly cited issue.
2. Slow starting. This is not as big of a problem with newer or more expensive lamps.
3. High initial cost.
4. Lower reliability. I've replaced about 20% of the lamps in my house over the past few years, most in covered ceiling fixtures. They also tend to fail in recessed downlights or anything else that traps heat. I've seen some that are labeled to warn against use in enclosed fixtures, but regardless, I consider this a pretty major issue that really should be addressed by manufacturers.
5. No standard shape or size. This can cause mechanical incompatibility issues with existing fixtures.
6. Hazardous materials in the lamp.
7. Temperature sensitivity makes them problematic to use outside (this is related to the reliability issue).

Greg is correct about the issue regarding longer usage reducing the energy savings. It isn't just the psychology of people caring less about turning them off and being less vigilant (I do it noticeabley - I'm aware of it, yet I still do it). The fact that many start slowly provides a genuine benefit for leaving them on when temporarily leaving a room.

The long lists of both pros and cons make the equation for using them a little bit more complicated than it often appears at first glance. This is not an issue of a clearly better product replacing an outdated product. I do own them mostly for the economic benefit, but the cons annoy me and I've never done a payback calculation that takes into account the high early failure rate.

It was suggested that this issue is similar to the banning of CFCs in the '90s. It's not, and the differences I think show why this ban is a bad idea. Though the replacements for CFCs are generally inferior to the CFCs they replaced, CFCs have a direct impact on the ozone layer and eliminating them was the only known way to fix the problem. The same is not true of CF lamps. CF lamps have a direct impact on reducing stress on our generation system and distribution grid, but there are other ways to deal with that issue, such as upgrading the grid or finding other ways to conserve. If CO2 is your concern, incandescent lamps have only a secondary effect on that, as the choice of how we generate power has the primary impact. The obvious other way around that issue is to change our way of generating power to one that doesn't create CO2.

So because of the lack of clear-cut need to eliminate incandescent bulbs, I don't think the government should be legislating about it. This ban is contrary to the concept of a free society.

 

[lisab]

Good points, Russ. I agree about the quality issue. I found a review on CF lamps (from 2007):

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/reviews/news/4215199

 

[russ_watters]

That article says the newer CF lamps - to their surprise (and mine) - produced better light than their control incandescent. So perhaps that's an obsolete con. In either case, I never personally considered it a significant issue, but I've never been that sensitive to that sort of thing.

The wiki lists several others that I'd forgotten. Notably:
1. Wattage inflation. Noted in the article and by people in the thread, the advertised wattage equivalent to incandescent is virtually always inaccurate.
2. Most will not work in dimming fixtures and/or require special dimmers.
3. Low power factor (messes with the power quality in the building).
4. Some make noise - that's related to the reliability issue. It is usually a faulty ballast that hums.
5. Light output decays with age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp

 

[CAC1001]

I made the mistake of replacing my outdoor lights for the same reasons and had to take them out, I didn't realize they don't work in sub freezing temperatures. After 20 minutes of warming, you have light equivalent to a matchstick. No good when you drive up to the house and the lights don't turn on.

I've read some towns and cities have discovered a similar problem with using CFLs in traffic lighs, in that during the winter, the old incandescents would melt the snow and ice on the lights, whereas the CFLs do not, so the lights freeze over and no one can see them.

 

[edward]

They missed the boat by limiting the flow of shower heads. The real water waste occurs when people take longer showers. Instead of limiting the flow of water, they should have limited the capacity of water heaters and/or limited the temperature of water heater.

I see a lot of new houses with low flow heads in the shower. Adjacent to the shower is a garden tub that looks like it would hold a zillion gallons of water. The pump in the tubs and the new wine cooler or mini fridge in the den offset any savings from using CFL's

 

[Vanadium 50]

People are just being stubborn. "I don't care about efficiency, becaues the government is telling me to buy them I don't want to."

Baloney.

Sorry, but there's no better word for it.

My house has regular fluorescents, compact fluorescents, halogens and incandescents. My main lighting is fluorescent, but there are some areas where fluorescent lighting doesn't work very well. For example, my garage door opener - it's cold, the bright time is short, you have an immediate need for all the light, and there are a lot of vibrations. It's not being stubborn: I started changing my lighting 11 years ago.

So I don't think it's right that the government somehow knows better than I do which technology works best, and it's certainly not right that it's stubbornness that's driving my decisions. (I am stubborn, but it's not driving my decisions!)

 

[G037H3]

fluorescent lights give me headaches, and I can't be the only one -_-

Neon is the future then I suppose? aha

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

jimmy was making a joke.

Half in jest, totally in earnest.

How many people do you know use candles to light their house?

I don't know how many people I know use candles to light their house. However, I assume that most, but not all people who use candles, use them to light something. Apparently, even your mother does. I shudder to think what Clinton does with them.

My mother uses candles all the time, but not to light the room like a light bulb. She does it for the scent and a faint light.

Your mother creates more greenhouse gas with those candles than I do with my incandescent bulbs.

Therefore, "lumen for lumen" is a terrible way to compare the two.

Candles produce more greenhouse gas than incandescent bulbs even when a single bulb is replaced by two candles. In that case, the lumens of the candles is far below that of the bulb.

Of course, the govt is not going after candles, they would look as ridiculous to everybody as they do to me for banning incandescents. You can't save energy with this kind of legislation. Whatever gets 'saved', will be used for some other purpose. The kind of legislation that would reduce energy use would be something like increased taxes on all forms of energy. I'm against that too, but at least it would work. If this legistlation is not totalitarian, then what on Earth is?

 

[Borek]

4. Some make noise - that's related to the reliability issue. It is usually a faulty ballast that hums.

And some emit flashes for hours after they have been switched off. I have one such over a dinner table, it is located in such a place that it is on form most of the time, as it provides enough light to make it possible to navigate through half of the house without switching anything else on. That's the last light I switch off when going up to our bedroom. If the night is long and dark (nothing unusual in late autumn or winter), and if I have to get down for some reason (rarely, but it happens), very weak flashes can be seen even 4 hours after switching the lamp off.

I guess switching hot and ground wires may help, but I am too lazy to check.

 

[Jack21222]

Half in jest, totally in earnest.


I don't know how many people I know use candles to light their house. However, I assume that most, but not all people who use candles, use them to light something. Apparently, even your mother does. I shudder to think what Clinton does with them.


Your mother creates more greenhouse gas with those candles than I do with my incandescent bulbs.



Candles produce more greenhouse gas than incandescent bulbs even when a single bulb is replaced by two candles. In that case, the lumens of the candles is far below that of the bulb.

Of course, the govt is not going after candles, they would look as ridiculous to everybody as they do to me for banning incandescents. You can't save energy with this kind of legislation. Whatever gets 'saved', will be used for some other purpose. The kind of legislation that would reduce energy use would be something like increased taxes on all forms of energy. I'm against that too, but at least it would work. If this legistlation is not totalitarian, then what on Earth is?

Candles are used for a totally different purpose than a light bulb. I'm sure my television uses more electricity lumen for lumen than a light bulb, too, but I seriously don't understand your point.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I seriously don't understand your point.

This.

It doesn't make sense to me unless they're going to ban candles too.

 

[Barwick]

They key here is that the government aren't going around houses forcing people to change them or else. They are simply preventing the sale by manufacturers.

Read what you said here carefully a few times over. Read it out loud (not at work, let's everyone think you're loony). Then think to yourself how crazy those two sentences sound. It's like saying "This zoning book isn't a book of restrictions... it's a book of permissions!" Same thing.

In this case, government is pointing a proverbial gun at manufacturers to prevent the sale of these products. Don't like the gun analogy? Watch what happens if those companies say "we're going to sell them anyway":
1) They will first be threatened with a fine.
2) Then fined.
3) If they refuse to pay that fine, they will be taken to court.
4) Court will rule on a judgment against them.
5) The judgment will seize a portion of their assets.
6) If their assets are physical (let's say gold, or machinery) and they refuse to hand over their assets, the government will send in agents (law enforcement officers) to demand the assets are turned over.
7) If they are not turned over, those agents will either seize the assets by force (with guns), or will come back at night and put a padlock on the door.
8) If the owner comes in and cuts the lock, eventually those agents will physically block entry to the place of business for anyone, including the owners, under threat of physical force (again, a gun).

That is what government does.

Now ask yourself, can ANYONE else do that besides the government? No. But who else acts that way sometimes? Criminals.

Specifically, the *Mafia*. They determine you owe them something because they say so, and will enforce their decision by any means required, ultimately at the barrel of a gun if necessary.

Only difference between the Government and the Mafia is that you get a "chance" to elect them with your 1 vote out of 100,000,000 every few years. Supposedly the Constitution protects us from abuses of that power, but obviously not (judging by the arguments put forth by legitimately good people in favor of this ban).

People are just being stubborn. "I don't care about efficiency, becaues the government is telling me to buy them I don't want to."

If I walked into your house for no apparent reason, pointed a gun at you, and told you that you *have* to go and eat that freshly baked cake that just came out of the oven 15 minutes ago (mmm... warm cake fresh out of the oven... you were planning on eating anyway), would you feel perfectly fine just sitting there eating that cake (that you wanted to eat anyhow), as I sit there pointing the gun at your head until you're done?

People don't like to be forced. Especially when they're sitting there wondering "Why are they doing this? What ELSE are they going to use that gun for in the future?" Even if people are willing to comply with one thing, they may not be willing to in the future with other things. But if the "majority" thinks they have to, then that makes it ok? Democracy is tyranny of the masses.