Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[DC]

I can just see all of these householders trekking to the recycling centre with burned out CFCs in hand and resisting the temptation to just drop it in the rubbish bin.

there will always be some that trow it just in their rubbish bin. But thats expensive. Garbage is pretty expensive here, and your lamps can be brought back to the store you bought it for free. you can bring it to every recycling center for free. 60%-70% are being recycled here.

ETA: Every Migros and Coop (the two largest retailers in Switzerland) take back all kinds of bottles, batteries, light bulbs, paper for recycling is getting picked up every 2 weeks for free. you dont really have to drive to a racycling center here. Also Electronics for recycling inlcuding old media like VHS casettes or CD's DVD's etc can be brought back to shops that sell electronic devices, they have to take back electronic garbage for recycling, even when it was not sold by them, when you buy a new electronic device you already have to pay for recycling when buying it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

when you run your incandescent light bulbs with cole power, more mercury will go into nature from burning cole, compared to a "mercury filled" light bulb.
and meanwhile there are alternatives to your mercury filled bulbs, i changed resently to LED bulbs.

I have yet to find an acceptable LED, but they are getting better all the time, so soon......

Hans

 

[DC]

I have yet to find an acceptable LED, but they are getting better all the time, so soon......

Hans

yes they are not yet the same, but they do the job for me. and in my bathroom i like them alot more than the CFCs i used, as they get to their max light power almost immediatly. Alo i do like the color of those Phillips LED Bulbs.

 

[psionl0]

The problem is that the development of alternative light sources would probably not move at all without the ban.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
So, how many LED lamps were on the market before this ban was introduced?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hans

If Henry Ford had your attitude he would never have bothered to manufacture those noisy, stinky, unreliable play toys for millionaires.

LED technology is not quite ready to light up a household but a fortune awaits the first firm that manufactures a practical LED bulb (they are so much better than any other form of lighting) so you can be sure that the development will occur.

As I mentioned before, the ban on incandescents is premature and is being done only so that politicians can call themselves "green".

 

[MRC_Hans]

yes they are not yet the same, but they do the job for me. and in my bathroom i like them alot more than the CFCs i used, as they get to their max light power almost immediatly. Alo i do like the color of those Phillips LED Bulbs.

I have a couple of usable LED reading lights, but otherwise ...

For the bathroom, kitchen, dinner table, etc, I use halogen. CFC I use for outdoor lamps, basement lams, background lighting, and such.

That is the annoying thing about all this: Some years ago, I had my bulb inventory down to basically two types: 40W Large Edison globes and 25W small Edison candle types. - And a couple of specials, which I only bought when an old one died. Now I have six+ types of halogen, 3 old-fashioned Edisons, 5 CFC, and two LED, plus the specials. AND a couple of odd types I bought to try out, but didn't really find a good use for, so now they just litter my drawer. .... All in all, I think I have nearly as many spares as I have actually in use.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

If Henry Ford had your attitude he would never have bothered to manufacture those noisy, stinky, unreliable play toys for millionaires.

Because cheap, reliable, if power consuming automobiles were already readily available in his time?

LED technology is not quite ready to light up a household but a fortune awaits the first firm that manufactures a practical LED bulb (they are so much better than any other form of lighting) so you can be sure that the development will occur.

Yes NOW, because people can't get those cheap and simple incadescents.

As I mentioned before, the ban on incandescents is premature and is being done only so that politicians can call themselves "green".

That can always be argued, but I claim that the transfer would take much longer (decades), were it not for the pressure from the ban.

Hans

ETA: Of course, they might have gone the way China had gone, and subsidized the production of CFC lamps.

 

[DC]

I have a couple of usable LED reading lights, but otherwise ...

For the bathroom, kitchen, dinner table, etc, I use halogen. CFC I use for outdoor lamps, basement lams, background lighting, and such.

That is the annoying thing about all this: Some years ago, I had my bulb inventory down to basically two types: 40W Large Edison globes and 25W small Edison candle types. - And a couple of specials, which I only bought when an old one died. Now I have six+ types of halogen, 3 old-fashioned Edisons, 5 CFC, and two LED, plus the specials. AND a couple of odd types I bought to try out, but didn't really find a good use for, so now they just litter my drawer. .... All in all, I think I have nearly as many spares as I have actually in use.

Hans

I replaced all my halogens with LED's except for the one lamp with a dimmer, that's still halogen, but is used only very seldom. In my kitchen i have 2 Fluorescent tubes and LED above the stove. above my bed i use the CFC's i still have. But will be replaced by LED soon.
But i don't have hobbies that use alot light, like building models or do electronics etc. so i am a bit more tolerant to less powerfull lights.

 

[psionl0]

Because cheap, reliable, if power consuming automobiles were already readily available in his time?

You clearly read different history book than I do.

Yes NOW, because people can't get those cheap and simple incadescents.

No, they have to buy CFCs which are a best a compromise because LEDS aren't ready to take over.

I claim that the transfer would take much longer (decades), were it not for the pressure from the ban.

Hans

Forcing the replacement of incandescents with CFCs can hardly be considered a plus.

 

[DC]

You clearly read different history book than I do.

No, they have to buy CFCs which are a best a compromise because LEDS aren't ready to take over.

Forcing the replacement of incandescents with CFCs can hardly be considered a plus.

LED's are ready to take over.

and why is it not a plus? in most countries more CFC's means, less coal burned, thus less mercury into the enviroment and other nasty stuff.

 

[dtugg]

there will always be some that trow it just in their rubbish bin. But thats expensive. Garbage is pretty expensive here, and your lamps can be brought back to the store you bought it for free. you can bring it to every recycling center for free. 60%-70% are being recycled here.

ETA: Every Migros and Coop (the two largest retailers in Switzerland) take back all kinds of bottles, batteries, light bulbs, paper for recycling is getting picked up every 2 weeks for free. you dont really have to drive to a racycling center here. Also Electronics for recycling inlcuding old media like VHS casettes or CD's DVD's etc can be brought back to shops that sell electronic devices, they have to take back electronic garbage for recycling, even when it was not sold by them, when you buy a new electronic device you already have to pay for recycling when buying it.

Sounds good. But in most cities in the the USA you can just dump whatever you want to in the trash can and it won't cost you anything besides the small monthly fee the city charges for collection. People do not usually recycle old light bulbs.

 

[DC]

Sounds good. But in most cities in the the USA you can just dump whatever you want to in the trash can and it won't cost you anything besides the small monthly fee the city charges for collection. People do not usually recycle old light bulbs.

we have to use offical bags that are pretty expensive. 60L bag costs 3.50$
making people think twice what to trow into it.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

FWIW, I just replaced an old cracked hood and fl lamp on my aquarium with a new glass hood and LED lighting.

It looks awesome.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Your availability of LED lamps may be better than mine . Here, I can only find rather poorly colored, low wattage (<5W), ridiculously overprized LED arrays. But it seems to be changing.

Hans

 

[DC]

Your availability of LED lamps may be better than mine . Here, I can only find rather poorly colored, low wattage (<5W), ridiculously overprized LED arrays. But it seems to be changing.

Hans

we got a pretty good pelette already, up to 100W like lamps.

http://www.kassensturz.sf.tv/Tests/LED-Lampen-im-Test

and the big retail chains have the for sale in most of their shops.
the price is indeed pretty high. a 3w (i think like 60W) LED lamp cost me 25$.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You clearly read different history book than I do.

If not, what was your point?

No, they have to buy CFCs which are a best a compromise because LEDS aren't ready to take over.

CFCs have also evolved greatly during the last few years.

Forcing the replacement of incandescents with CFCs can hardly be considered a plus.

As you can see, opinions differ on this.

Hans

 

[Muldur]

It doesn't matter exactly why some people prefer incandescent bulbs, the fact is that they do. ]There is no need to ban such bulbs. It's stupid nanny-statism, for very small gains.

People would prefer to not pay taxes, get high, and do a great many other things that have a massively negative effect on the public good. Doesn't mean we should let them

 

[Muldur]

No, they have to buy CFCs which are a best a compromise because LEDS aren't ready to take over.

Forcing the replacement of incandescents with CFCs can hardly be considered a plus.

Prime example of "perfect being the enemy of the better" syndrome. Your "perfect" solution (LEDs) is not ready, so you reject ANY change until it is, even if the change (CFBs in this case) is better than the status quo (incandescent bulbs).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

As I mentioned before, the ban on incandescents is premature and is being done only so that politicians can call themselves "green".

And as I mentioned, there is no ban on incandescents.

While reasonable minds can disagree on whether or not EISA was the best way to deal with grossly inefficient technology (where market forces weren't sufficient to get people to move away from grossly inefficient lightbulbs), they cannot disagree on what the law says and does.

Again, it sets energy efficiency standards for some (not all) standard size and type of lightbulbs. These standards will phase in over 2 years' time.

Already, even before the first wave that would affect conventional 100 watt lightbulbs goes into effect in January of 2012, there are compliant incandescents on the market.

So again, this law most definitely is not a ban on incandescent light bulbs.

Therefore it cannot be a premature ban, since it's not a ban at all.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Lumens, coverage, access, replacement method, dimming mechanisms, fixture style.

You know? Them details? Darn them details, they just ruin those one-size-fits-all plans by simple minded fanatics.

I can't believe there is so much misinformation about the EISA requirements.

It most definitely isn't a one-size-fits-all plan. (Though I agree the guy who signed it into law was a simple-minded fanatic, but not for signing the EISA.)

Dimmable bulbs are exempt from the energy efficiency standards as are all sorts of specialty bulbs, bulbs outside the conventional 40-100w range, bulbs for outdoor use, colored bulbs, and so on.

Also, as I have mentioned, there are already compliant incandescent bulbs on the market.


ETA: From that "one-size-fits-all" legislation:

(ii) EXCLUSIONS- The term `general service incandescent lamp' does not
include the following incandescent lamps:

(I) Appliance lamp (e.g. refrigerator or oven light)
(II) Black light lamp.
(III) Bug lamp.
(IV) Colored lamp.
(V) Infrared lamp.
(VI) Left-hand thread lamp.
(VII) Marine lamp.
(VIII) Marine signal service lamp.
(IX) Mine service lamp.
(X) Plant light lamp.
(XI) Reflector lamp.
(XII) Rough service lamp.
(XIII) Shatter-resistant lamp (including a shatter-proof lamp and a
shatter-protected lamp).
(XIV) Sign service lamp.
(XV) Silver bowl lamp.
(XVI) Showcase lamp.
(XVII) 3-way incandescent lamp.
(XVIII) Traffic signal lamp.
(XIX) Vibration service lamp.
(XX) Globe shaped “G” lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and
C79.1-2002 with a diameter of 5 inches or more.
(XXI) T shape lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002) and
that uses not more than 40 watts or has a length of more than 10 inches.
(XXII) A B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S, or M-14 lamp (as defined
in ANSI C79.1-2002 and ANSI C78.20-2003) of 40 watts or less.
(XXIII) Candelabra incandescent and other lights not having a medium
Edison screw base.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It doesn't matter exactly why some people prefer incandescent bulbs, the fact is that they do. There is no need to ban such bulbs. It's stupid nanny-statism, for very small gains.

I think there is a need to it. People are still making these decisions based on misinformation. Also, the free market wasn't providing sufficient incentive to develop better solutions (than CFLs) or getting us largely away from using grossly energy inefficient lightbulbs. The free market often doesn't reflect long-term energy and environmental concerns.

That's also why CAFE standards are needed to pretty much drag the auto industry kicking and screaming to improve the efficiency of our auto fleet. Market forces alone just wouldn't get us very far very quickly.

ETA: In fact, with the lightbulb regulations, I look at it the other way around. It's a pretty large gain for an almost trivial sacrifice.