Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[Jrrarglblarg]

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.

Really! Can you post a link showing them? I'm in the market to replace a couple hoods that are going bad, and I'm open to new solutions.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

I guess it's a good thing the law is doing no such thing.

Rather it establishes energy efficiency standards that phase in over a 2 year period. Since the bill was signed into law 2 years ago, as I mentioned, compliant incandescent bulbs have already hit the market. Perhaps greatly improved LEDs and CFLs will come along soon too. Most people I talk to predict that LEDs will eventually become the standard, but the part of the law people are referring to as a "ban on incandescents" doesn't favor any specific technology.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

The part in bold is false.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

I've had all CFLs in my house since I moved in here about 4 years ago. I've had none burn out, but I have broken two of them. HomeDepot (and I suspect most other places the bulbs are sold) has a recycling center for it, and they even provide little baggies. It's not such a big deal.

In fact, compared to how often I was replacing lightbulbs in the past, I'd consider the net effect to be an increase in convenience.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

Well done!

But I would point out that those types of lights are definitely NOT subject to the energy efficiency standards.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think there is a need to it. People are still making these decisions based on misinformation.

First, you don't know why people choose what they choose. Second, some people want to buy them knowing all the facts. Third, it isn't the place of government to make sure you never make a mistake. Like I said, that's just nanny statism. I for one am an adult, and have no interest in a government treating me like a child. Evidently you like a government that treats you like a child. You may think it doesn't because you're well behaved (according to the nanny), but the fact that a well-behaved child doesn't get scolded doesn't mean they aren't still treated like a child.

Also, the free market wasn't providing sufficient incentive to develop better solutions (than CFLs)

What qualifies as "sufficient incentive"? Why is that the appropriate level? And how do you determine that this level was not reached without the ban, but was reached with the ban? I doubt how you can actually provide evidence to answer any of these questions. And given that the efficiency gains beyond CFL's are pretty incremental compared to the incandescent to CFL jump, why weren't CFL's (which were doing quite fine without the ban) good enough?

or getting us largely away from using grossly energy inefficient lightbulbs.

It isn't your place to tell me what I can do with the energy that I buy. It isn't the state's business either.

The free market often doesn't reflect long-term energy and environmental concerns.

Yes, actually, it does. It's called price. If you don't think the price accurately reflects the cost, then crank up the price. If the price isn't high enough to reflect the cost, then changing to more efficient bulbs won't fix the problem. People will still waste too much electricity.

 

[NoScotsman]

The government also needs to ban the use of the sun. Sure, it's a great light source... but it causes skin cancer and contributes to global warming.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

The best part of all this is that I can update my mental image of the stockpiling end-times survivalist to not only have his stash of MREs, guns, and gold, but also lightbulbs.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

I don't think that's the appropriate way to phrase the question. The issue should not be what government should permit, but rather what we allow the government to deny. The difference matters because the phrasing suggests the default answer, and a default of not denying is better than a default of not permitting.

And something having a negative impact on the public good is, frankly, not enough to deny it. Taxes are a necessary evil, but they are an evil nonetheless. There is nothing necessary about banning light bulbs. As for getting high, well, with something like pot, we really SHOULDN'T be denying it. Just like we don't deny people from getting drunk. Harder drugs are a more difficult call, but in any case the drug war hardly provides an inspiring example of the benefits and effectiveness of government regulations.

In terms of light bulbs, the public harm you seek to avoid is using too much energy. But banning incandescent light bulbs doesn't even guarantee that result, because energy consumption is determined not only by the appliance, but by usage patterns. Surely you would balk at government dictates on usage patterns, so why do you not balk at government dictates on the appliance itself? Is it merely because one is not an imposition to you personally while the other is? That would be rather selfish of you. If government is allowed to tell you what kind of light bulb you can buy, what prevents it from telling you how you can use it? If your answer is merely that they wouldn't, my response is that this is not an answer of principles, but merely a claim that you'll always be in the majority on this issue. That's not a principled position, nor in my mind a particularly safe one.

 

[DC]

I don't think that's the appropriate way to phrase the question. The issue should not be what government should permit, but rather what we allow the government to deny. The difference matters because the phrasing suggests the default answer, and a default of not denying is better than a default of not permitting.

And something having a negative impact on the public good is, frankly, not enough to deny it. Taxes are a necessary evil, but they are an evil nonetheless. There is nothing necessary about banning light bulbs. As for getting high, well, with something like pot, we really SHOULDN'T be denying it. Just like we don't deny people from getting drunk. Harder drugs are a more difficult call, but in any case the drug war hardly provides an inspiring example of the benefits and effectiveness of government regulations.

In terms of light bulbs, the public harm you seek to avoid is using too much energy. But banning incandescent light bulbs doesn't even guarantee that result, because energy consumption is determined not only by the appliance, but by usage patterns. Surely you would balk at government dictates on usage patterns, so why do you not balk at government dictates on the appliance itself? Is it merely because one is not an imposition to you personally while the other is? That would be rather selfish of you. If government is allowed to tell you what kind of light bulb you can buy, what prevents it from telling you how you can use it? If your answer is merely that they wouldn't, my response is that this is not an answer of principles, but merely a claim that you'll always be in the majority on this issue. That's not a principled position, nor in my mind a particularly safe one.

AGW is a good enough reason to ban them. the limits of electric grids are another. impact on society and enviroment by waste of electricity yet another.

 

[Ziggurat]

AGW is a good enough reason to ban them. the limits of electric grids are another. impact on society and enviroment by waste of electricity yet another.

And is that then not a good enough reason to dictate usage as well?

 

[mhaze]

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

Some people see through the snarky lies that you blithly repeat. EG, don't "ban them", just force the factories to shut down.

If you have trouble seeing these facts let us know. Happy to help. And thanks for sending another chunk of American business to China in the name of greenie fascism.



http://nation.foxnews.com/business/2010/09/08/left-forces-shutdown-last-us-lightbulb-factory

 

[DC]

And is that then not a good enough reason to dictate usage as well?

not practicable.

 

[mhaze]

.....In terms of light bulbs, the public harm you seek to avoid is using too much energy. But banning incandescent light bulbs doesn't even guarantee that result, because energy consumption is determined not only by the appliance, but by usage patterns......

I suspect Jevon's Law will be at work in this case, and electrical consumption for lighting will increase as a result of the government and green fascist actions.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51158

In his 1865 book “The Coal Question: An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of our Coal-Mines,” English economist William Stanley Jevons made the observation “Of the Economy of Fuel” that when improvements in technology make it possible to use a fuel more efficiently, the consumption of the fuel tends to go up, not down.
This is known as Jevons’ Paradox. It occurs because as the efficiency of a type of machinery is improved, it becomes profitable for many more customers and feasible to apply it to new applications. This results in rapid growth of the number of machines in use and consequently, an increase in fuel consumption overall.

 

[WildCat]

Compact fluorescents make horrible outdoor lights in cold weather, they never warm up and all you get is a dim glow.

 

[Ziggurat]

not practicable.

That's your only objection? If it could be made practical (and it can be), then you'd be OK with it?

It's amazing how willing some people are to surrender freedom and accept a yoke.

 

[DC]

That's your only objection? If it could be made practical (and it can be), then you'd be OK with it?

It's amazing how willing some people are to surrender freedom and accept a yoke.

if it were needed, yes why not. But no it is not needed, yet. and propably never will.

 

[Ziggurat]

if it were needed, yes why not. But no it is not needed, yet. and propably never will.

Why do we need to ban incandescents but don't need to dictate usage? You can offer no coherent explanation of your position.

 

[mhaze]

AGW is a good enough reason to ban them. .....

Out of the closet comes the green eco-fascist mentality!

Thank you.

 

[DC]

Why do we need to ban incandescents but don't need to dictate usage? You can offer no coherent explanation of your position.

because it is a technology that is very inneficient, and there are alternatives that are far more efficient. and it is time to remove this old technology where it is possible, that that has been done and will be done. and is only a small impact on your freedom. and it might be that this moderate aproach will be a good step in to our more energy efficient future.
But dicdating the use of light itself is a huge extreme impact on your freedom and is most propably never needed, unless people are not able to learn.