Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[johnny karate]

Joe. The reason your double talk, obfuscation and denial don't work is because I earlier in this thread, mentioned stockpiling 90 and 150 watt incadescent bulbs for applications which needed them. Why did I do that if they were not banned?

He's got you there, Joe.

The only possible explanation for someone hoarding something is that the item in question must have been banned by an intrusive, fascist government.

It's not even remotely possible that said hoarder is a knee-jerk reactionary ignorant of the facts.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Joe. The reason your double talk, obfuscation and denial don't work is because I earlier in this thread, mentioned stockpiling 90 and 150 watt incadescent bulbs for applications which needed them. Why did I do that if they were not banned?

Why are you doing something that makes no sense? I haven't a clue.

I'll say it again because you don't seem to understand. EISA establishes energy efficiency guidelines for some standard size, brightness and application light bulbs. It does not ban incandescent bulbs.

They disappeared from store shelves due to government regulation.

The energy efficient, compliant indandescent bulbs have been on the shelves for about a year now, in fact.

That these energy efficient incandescent bulbs are lower wattage is pretty much just a tautology (they produce more lumens per watt, which is pretty much what being energy efficient means).

The replacement for a traditional 100w bulb, for example, is this compliant incandescent 70w bulb:
http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc...splay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053

For the record, the actual 100w version is also on the shelves, though it produces 1670 lumens and is not an appropriate replacement for a traditional 100w bulb:
http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc...splay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053

There's something of a disconnect with reality between these simple facts, and what you are saying.

No. You are just basing your understanding of the regulation on false statements.

 

[Ziggurat]

Again, there is no ban on incandescent light bulbs.

Yes, actually, there is. Not on all incandescents, but certainly on a large class of them.

The law has already kick-started more R & D on energy efficient incandescents such that compliant bulbs are already on the market.

Yes, there are various halogen bulbs on the market. They have their own drawbacks compared to conventional incandescents, and not just because of the higher price. They also have safety concerns (including fire hazards) that ordinary incandescents don't have.

 

[Ziggurat]

When they can create their own electricity off the grid, witrhout releasing additional soot, mercury and sulphur into the environment, they are welcome to use whatever kind of power-hungry light bulbs they want.

Except that they aren't. No such exemption exists within the law.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

He's got you there, Joe.

And it just occurred to me, by that logic, why else would Harold Camping and his friends have been preparing for the Rapture and the end of days? It MUST be true!

 

[mhaze]

Why are you doing something that makes no sense? I haven't a clue.

I'll say it again because you don't seem to understand. EISA establishes energy efficiency guidelines for some standard size, brightnes.....

No. You are just basing your understanding of the regulation on false statements.

No, you are misrepresenting the products at Home Depot, no doubt due to ignorance. Then you erroneously think you could pawn off halogen bulbs for the application for which I stockpiled incandescents.

1. Incadescnet refers to heating a filament wire. Above, you assert that halogen bulbs are incadescent. They are not. They are "halogen bulbs". That's what you link to, and those do not work on circuits with dimmers.

2. The applications I mentioned require 90 and 150 watt flood light style bulbs with soft light. Halogen doesn't meet this criteria, being a harsh white.

3. So to summarize - someone who promotes control over other people through law and regulation (JoetheJuggler) does not have much of a clue about the very products he is ordering people to use and is not competent in the area of concern.

 

[Babbylonian]

Joe. The reason your double talk, obfuscation and denial don't work is because I earlier in this thread, mentioned stockpiling 90 and 150 watt incadescent bulbs for applications which needed them. Why did I do that if they were not banned? They disappeared from store shelves due to government regulation.

There's something of a disconnect with reality between these simple facts, and what you are saying.

Meanwhile, I've got my stockpile of bulbs. And you've got words.

Just to pile on, I'd ask this: Did they disappear from store shelves due to government regulation, or did they disappear from store shelves due to people "stockpiling" the bulbs? Given that there was no federally mandated recall of noncompliant incandescent bulbs, it seems far more likely that the latter explanation is the correct one.

 

[Ziggurat]

I took a few minutes to look up definitions of the word "authoritarianism" and none of them apply to laws passed by elected representatives, approved by elected executives, and subject to review by an independent judiciary.

So you ARE taking it as axiomatic. That's foolish.

At best, Ziggurat, your use of the word is incorrect; at worst, it's ridiculous hyperbole intended to make a mountain out of the proverbial molehill.

It's intended to show that you can point to no dividing line in your logic between what you want now and what would constitute unambiguous authoritarianism.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Gotta love moving goalposts.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, there are various halogen bulbs on the market. They have their own drawbacks compared to conventional incandescents, and not just because of the higher price. They also have safety concerns (including fire hazards) that ordinary incandescents don't have.

And does that somehow change the fact that the law is not a ban on incandescents?

If the industry comes up with bulbs that satisfy the energy requirements and don't have those drawbacks, they too will be allowed.

You know why?

Because the law is not a ban on incandescent light bulbs.

It is a ban on any technology of lightbulbs (standard size, brightness and application and not falling into any of the exemptions) that uses more than the specified energy for the given range of brightness.

 

[Babbylonian]

It's intended to show that you can point to no dividing line in your logic between what you want now and what would constitute unambiguous authoritarianism.

Seriously, I'm not going to do your homework for you. Look up the word and you'll figure out why I'm taking issue with your usage. You might then look for a word that makes more sense in this situation.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's intended to show that you can point to no dividing line in your logic between what you want now and what would constitute unambiguous authoritarianism.

So why is it up to others to prove to you that this is not authoritarianism rather than your burden to support your claim?

FWIW, I think Babbylonian's point that the law was passed through normal democratic means (with, BTW, bipartisan support and signed by Bush) at the very least shifts the burden back to you.

If not, what you're doing is asking us to prove that there are no black swans. If you're claiming there is a black swan, it should be a simple matter for you to support your claim.

 

[mhaze]

Just to pile on, I'd ask this: Did they disappear from store shelves due to government regulation, or did they disappear from store shelves due to people "stockpiling" the bulbs? Given that there was no federally mandated recall of noncompliant incandescent bulbs, it seems far more likely that the latter explanation is the correct one.

Good question. They disappeared due to the very phase ins specified in the law. Manufacturing and sale ceased according to the law, so all that is left at this time is stockpiled product.

But keep in mind that I stockpiled certain specific bulbs for specific applications. I have no objection to CFLs or other technologies, each where it works best as far as I'm concerned.

I have a big objection to ignorant people trying to tell me what to do whether in law, regulation or otherwise.

Further I have an objection to snarky weasling around a subject such as Joe is doing here (although I'm okay with his noting the exceptions in the law for specialty bulbs).

Without getting technical, the law actually does ban incandescent bulbs by specifying a lumens per watt criteria in the visible light range which is not achievable scientifically with tungsten or other fine wire filaments. So it does do exactly what Joe is claiming it does not do.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, you are misrepresenting the products at Home Depot, no doubt due to ignorance.

Nope. You're just wrong. Not a matter of opinion, you're just wrong as a matter of fact.

1. Incadescnet refers to heating a filament wire. Above, you assert that halogen bulbs are incadescent. They are not.

Wrong. Halogen bulbs use a tungsten filament. They are indeed incandescent bulbs.

They are "halogen bulbs". That's what you link to, and those do not work on circuits with dimmers.

Wrong. Read the specs on the Home Depot pages I linked. They are indeed dimmable.

2. The applications I mentioned require 90 and 150 watt flood light style bulbs with soft light. Halogen doesn't meet this criteria, being a harsh white.

Flood lights are reflector lights, and they are exempt from the energy efficiency regulations. You will be able to buy traditional incandescent flood light bulbs even after 2014 (unless some new law is passed).

3. So to summarize - someone who promotes control over other people through law and regulation (JoetheJuggler) does not have much of a clue about the very products he is ordering people to use and is not competent in the area of concern.

To summarize: mhaze is hazy on the facts.

And did you just now claim that I, JoetheJuggler, am ordering people to use certain products? That's an even more outrageous claim than the false claim that the EISA requires people to use a certain product.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Further I have an objection to snarky weasling around a subject such as Joe is doing here

Bullcrap.

Without getting technical, the law actually does ban incandescent bulbs by specifying a lumens per watt criteria in the visible light range which is not achievable scientifically with tungsten or other fine wire filaments. So it does do exactly what Joe is claiming it does not do.

[Mhaze], you are dead wrong. I've linked to an incandescent bulb that uses a tungsten filament and satisfies the energy efficiency guidelines.

However, even if this product didn't already exist (for about a year now), it is certainly wrong of you to claim that it is scientifically impossible to achieve. In fact, I've read that they've already got high efficiency incandescents that will be about twice as efficient as the ones I've indicated.

Just for your edification, the following is from the Wiki article on Halogen Lights:

A halogen lamp, also known as a tungsten halogen lamp, is an incandescent lamp with a tungsten filament contained within an inert gas and a small amount of a halogen such as iodine or bromine.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility. Do not change a member's name for the purpose of insulting them.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

(although I'm okay with his noting the exceptions in the law for specialty bulbs).

You mean like the ones you've been foolishly stockpiling?

 

[Babbylonian]

FWIW, I think Babbylonian's point that the law was passed through normal democratic means (with, BTW, bipartisan support and signed by Bush) at the very least shifts the burden back to you.

That was exactly my point. I'm not saying that there aren't bad laws (there absolutely are) or that I think the majority should be able to do anything they want without regards to the rights of the minority (I absolutely don't).

What I would say is that we've been in what has been declared to be an "energy crisis" for going on 40 years now, and I think that forcing industry to do more with less energy is an appropriate use of government power. Whatever change in character of the light we generate, we'll get used to it and in 20 years nobody will think twice about the difference between the light generated by their LED arrays (which they may never have to replace after installation) versus what was generated by 20th century incandescent bulbs (which in some cases had to be changed way too often, generating a whole lotta waste).

I feel for people who want things to forever stay exactly the way they've already learned to like it, but that's not the way the world works -- or at least it's not the way the world can continue working indefinitely.

The light bulb industry has been extremely reluctant to change because they made serious bank on bulbs that had to be changed a couple times a year. Congress (composed of our elected representatives) deliberated and decided that enough was enough, and I won't apologize for being glad that they made a decision that I like. And just because you don't like it, Ziggurat (and others), doesn't make it "authoritarianism" or any other kind of "-ism." It's republican democracy.

 

[Ziggurat]

And does that somehow change the fact that the law is not a ban on incandescents?

A wide class of incandescents are banned under the law. How is that not a ban on incandescents? Yes, it's not a ban on all incandescents, and it would be wrong to suggest otherwise, but it's also wrong to suggest that there aren't any incandescents which are banned.

It is a ban on any technology of lightbulbs (standard size, brightness and application and not falling into any of the exemptions) that uses more than the specified energy for the given range of brightness.

If you outlaw people from owning four-legged mammals over 20 pounds, that's a ban on dogs.

 

[Ziggurat]

Seriously, I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Understanding YOUR position on matters that you will not explain is not MY homework. I'm asking you to explain whether your OWN stated justifications for the ban on light bulbs can be extended to far more restrictive prohibitions and controls, and if not, why not. This question is apparently of no interest to you. Is it that you don't want to explain yourself, that you don't have an answer, or that you haven't even thought about it?

 

[mhaze]

....Flood lights are reflector lights, and they are exempt from the energy efficiency regulations. You will be able to buy traditional incandescent flood light bulbs even after 2014 (unless some new law is passed)......

That's nothing but a lie, because they are not on the store shelves as a result of the law we discuss. You may be referring to some technical language in the law, and what it "allows", but that is total bs. As a result of the bill, the 90 and 150 watt incandescent floodlight are not on the store shelves today. Only the 65 watt.

I'm not sure what part of this is hard for you to understand. I am talking about going in the store, finding something isn't there anymore, and having to order them off ebay and stock them. Why is it not in the store? Because of the law and the regulations of the law.

And no, halogens will not work for these applications. Halogens have been around for many years, and I think we all understand the merits and limitations of them.

..... light bulb industry has been extremely reluctant to change because they made serious bank on bulbs that had to be changed a couple times a year. Congress (composed of our elected representatives) deliberated and decided that enough was enough, and I won't apologize for being glad that they made a decision that I like.....

That does not take into account the heavy lobbying by the light bulb industry on the CFL issue. They knew that would mean big money for them. GE was heavily involved, with their 20M lobbying budget.

So I think it isn't factually correct to say the light bulb industry was extremely resistant to change in this case. Quite the reverse.

And as I mentioned earlier, Jevons Paradox is quite likely to come into play here. That means as a result of more efficient technology, we have more energy consumed through lighting, not less.