Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[Ziggurat]

Again, the law doesn't ban incandescents.

Again, it does. There is an entire class of incandescents which are now banned because of the law. Efficiency requirements are the mechanism for banning these bulbs, but the effect is absolutely to ban an entire class of incandescents. And the difference between the banned bulbs and the ones which are not banned is not simply efficiency. They have other functional differences as well, differences which make the high efficiency bulbs inferior in certain ways.

It is willful fantasy to pretend that the law doesn't ban incandescents. Nobody claimed it bans all incandescents, but it most definitely does ban an entire class of them.

 

[mhaze]

The law says outdoor lightbulbs (which includes floodlights) are exempt. So are reflector lightbulbs. I can quote you that language and yes, it is sufficient to make the case that the law doesn't ban those bulbs either. And therefore the law isn't the reason why you can't find them on the shelves. (Last time I looked, there was a broad selection of traditional incandescent floodlights.)

Quit trying to be patronizing. You're the one who obviously hasn't done his homework. I've got you claiming the Halogena isn't incandescent, when it is. You claim it's not dimmable, when it is.

If you're still talking about floodlights, that's simply not true.....

Bull. Pull up either home depot or lowes and show me 90 and 150 watt interior floodlights, incadescent. Not tungsten-halogen cycle.

No more of this double talk. Produce, please.

 

[DC]

Bull. Pull up either home depot or lowes and show me 90 and 150 watt interior floodlights, incadescent. Not tungsten-halogen cycle.

No more of this double talk. Produce, please.

http://www.nextag.com/Litetronics-150-Watt-BR40-611596036/prices-html

http://www.homedepot.com/Electrical...splay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053

 

[ponderingturtle]

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?

So any form of consumer enviromental laws are all abusive totalitarianism? Be it fuel efficiency standards in cars, banning some classes of incandecent bulbs, banning leaded gas or TSP in cleaners?

If not then when are they ever justified and why specificially are they not justified in this case?

 

[Kestrel]

I would have preferred taxing incandescent bulbs instead of banning them outright. Incandescents would remain available for special purposes, but would be more expensive that the efficient alternatives.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Again, it does. There is an entire class of incandescents which are now banned because of the law.

But they're not being banned because they're incandescent. They're banned because they fail to satisfy the energy efficiency requirements.

I've already shown incandescents that satisfy the requirements.

So, it is inaccurate to claim that the law comprises a ban on incandescents.

Claiming that it effectively bans a certain class of incandescents is a different claim. This new claim, of course, doesn't support your idea that the law is authoritarian though.

Nobody claimed it bans all incandescents, but it most definitely does ban an entire class of them.

First, read the OP.

Second, in terms of logic, claiming the law bans incandescent lightbulbs (with no other qualifications) is equivalent to claiming it bans all incandescent lightbulbs. If you mean "some incandescents" you have to say that, as you have begun doing.

And third, one can still argue that the law doesn't ban a class of incandescents because that's not how it is worded. Saying the effect of the law is a ban of a certain class of incandescents of standard size, shape, color and brightness only is different than claiming it bans them because they're incandescent.

 

[gph]

I have no respect for people arguing for their, apparently, inherent right to adversely affect our planet. Especially over something as trivial and superfluous as this.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I would have preferred taxing incandescent bulbs instead of banning them outright. Incandescents would remain available for special purposes, but would be more expensive that the efficient alternatives.

Under the EISA, incandescent bulbs are still going to be available for special purposes. (I think I earlier listed all the categories of light bulbs that are completely exempt from energy efficiency standards).

Please, don't believe the claims that the law is a ban on incandescent bulbs. It is not.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Bull. Pull up either home depot or lowes and show me 90 and 150 watt interior floodlights, incadescent. Not tungsten-halogen cycle.

So you're still clinging to the false claim that halogen lights aren't incandescent light bulbs?

Also, I would like to point out that I have already quoted the law and it clearly says that outdoor light bulbs and reflector light bulbs are exempt from energy efficiency standards.

Whether or not Home Depot still carries them is another matter. Ditto your own behavior wrt stockpiling light bulbs. They are not evidence that these bulbs are banned. Home Depot is free to abandon obsolete technology even if that technology is still legal.

No more of this double talk. Produce, please.

Please cite even one example of "double talk" or else retract the accusation.

You've also accused me of being "snarky" and "weasling", and nothing I've said has been remotely like that.

Is it "snarky" and "weasling" to point out that your claim that halogen lights don't have filaments is erroneous? Is it "double talk" to point out that you were wrong in claiming the compliant Halogena light bulbs aren't dimmable?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, they are nuts. The THEY is people with the well know neurosis, Liberal Authoritarian Controller Personality Disorder.

You mean authoritarian "liberals" like the Republicans in Congress who voted for the measure and President Bush who signed it into law?

Fortunately, unrelated to this crap ban on incandescent written in snarky legalese so that people like Joe can pontificate on it not being a ban on incandescent bulbs, in the meantime and without any help from Washington, LED bulbs are getting very, very nice.

Please explain how the EISA helps makers and sellers of CFLS but not makers and sellers of LEDs.

ETA: I don't think you know what the word "snarky" means. If you think you're using it correctly, please cite language from the law (and it's very long) that is "snarky". That a law is written in legalese is pretty much a tautology, isn't it? At the very least, it shouldn't be a point of criticism. Pretty much all very large and complex laws have to be written in legalese.

 

[Kestrel]

Under the EISA, incandescent bulbs are still going to be available for special purposes. (I think I earlier listed all the categories of light bulbs that are completely exempt from energy efficiency standards).

Please, don't believe the claims that the law is a ban on incandescent bulbs. It is not.

My goal was a simpler solution. Instead of having to enumerate every special purpose where someone might need an incandescent bulb, and create a legal description of each of those special bulbs, you simply make them more expensive.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My goal was a simpler solution. Instead of having to enumerate every special purpose where someone might need an incandescent bulb, and create a legal description of each of those special bulbs, you simply make them more expensive.

And of course your idea would also raise revenues that could in turn be used to invest in R & D of new technology (or even to help offset the deficit or pay for tax cuts to the wealthy or anything).

I don't think a tax on the same group of energy efficient light bulbs that was substantial enough to achieve the same result would be seen as less "authoritarian" by critics, though.

FWIW, the enumeration of exemptions was overkill. Most exempt bulbs are exempt because they're not in the class of standard size, base, and lumen range already specified in addition to the other characteristics in the enumeration of exempt bulbs.

Take for example flood lights. Generally, we're talking about more lumens than the ranges subject to the efficiency standards. They're also for outdoor use, and they're also reflector lights.

ETA: I also suspect a tax wouldn't have gotten bipartisan support. The Republicans that voted for EISA might have been opposed to a new federal tax on light bulbs.

 

[Bri]

Bull. Pull up either home depot or lowes and show me 90 and 150 watt interior floodlights, incadescent. Not tungsten-halogen cycle.

No more of this double talk. Produce, please.

I'm just wondering if everyone here realizes that the wattage of a light bulb doesn't determine the light output (lumens). Most fixtures will take a range of wattages as long as the voltage is correct. In general, you want to look at the lumens and find the lowest wattage that produces the amount of light you need (the lower the wattage the less energy it uses). So searching for a new efficient 150 watt bulb to replace an older less efficient 150 watt bulb usually doesn't make sense -- an efficient bulb will produce much more light than an older, less efficient bulb of the same wattage.

If your concern is about the light "temperature" or dimming, there are efficient bulbs in a variety of temperatures, dimmable or not dimmable, of different types (incandescent, compact fluorescent, or LED). If your concern is about price, efficient bulbs currently cost a little more upfront, but last longer and therefore save money over the life of the bulb (the prices have already dropped drastically and will likely continue to drop). The exception may be LED's which are still expensive but will come down in price (LED's last a very long time though). If your concern is about mercury, CFL's contain a small amount and incandescents and LED's contain none. The amount in a CFL is very small, and experts point out that the amount of mercury released into the atmosphere from power plants for the amount of power saved by CFL's exceeds the amount of mercury in CFL's. In other words, CFL usage represents a net reduction in mercury. And if properly recycled, the mercury in CFL's can be recovered.

BTW, here's a decent article on the subject from PolitiFact:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../government-banning-incandescent-light-bulbs/

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Bull. Pull up either home depot or lowes and show me 90 and 150 watt interior floodlights, incadescent. Not tungsten-halogen cycle.

Here's Lowe's 120 w non-halogen incandescent indoor flood light:

http://www.lowes.com:80/pd_69008-3-15951_0__?productId=3388182

The old-style 150 w Sylvania floodlight is carried by Amazon, Ace, and many others (and will not be subject to the energy efficiency standards, as I've shown, because it is a reflector light):

http://www.google.com/products/cata...Td6iEIXw0gHW2MmaBw&ved=0CGgQ8wIwAw#ps-sellers


But believe it or not many decisions about what products to sell are the free decisions of the seller (based perhaps on their perception of the market), and not the result of the EISA!


This is the case with reflector lights since they are among the bulb types that are exempt from the energy efficiency standards.

If anything, the fact that Home Depot no longer carries these bulbs that you want to stockpile shows that your preferences are different from that of the market. It seems that for flood lights, the halogen incandescent bulbs are preferable to the older technology (more brightness for the amount of energy used, and longer-lived).

 

[Ziggurat]

But they're not being banned because they're incandescent.

I don't recall claiming that they were banned because they're incandescent. But they've still been banned. The criteria that the law uses is rather irrelevant to customers who can't get them anymore because they have been banned.

I've already shown incandescents that satisfy the requirements.

Yes, and they are not actually functionally identical to the incandescents which have been banned. Aside from the cost, their spectra aren't the same and they have additional safety concerns that traditional incandescents don't have. So the bulbs that satisfy the requirements are for some people NOT functional equivalents.

Claiming that it effectively bans a certain class of incandescents is a different claim.

But it's NOT an effective ban. It's an actual ban.

Second, in terms of logic, claiming the law bans incandescent lightbulbs (with no other qualifications) is equivalent to claiming it bans all incandescent lightbulbs. If you mean "some incandescents" you have to say that, as you have begun doing.

Please. Nobody in this thread is under that misapprehension, and I've even explicitly stated (multiple times) that it's not a total ban on all incandesents. And if that's your objection to the claim, then you should have been saying that from the start.

And third, one can still argue that the law doesn't ban a class of incandescents because that's not how it is worded.

I don't care how it's worded, that's what it does.

Saying the effect of the law is a ban of a certain class of incandescents of standard size, shape, color and brightness only is different than claiming it bans them because they're incandescent.

I never said that's why they were banned, so this objection is irrelevant.

 

[mhaze]

I'm just wondering if everyone here realizes that the wattage of a light bulb doesn't determine the light output (lumens). Most fixtures will take a range of wattages as long as the voltage is correct. In general, you want to look at the lumens and find the lowest wattage .....

I have the impression that posters do understand this, but nothing wrong with pointing it out. In the particular case I cited and with traditional specification of incandescent bulbs, watts is the standard measure by which they are specified.

The variations you have mentioned always COMPARE the lumen output of a new bulb to the traditional incandescent. That's absolutely necessary with LED and with CFL, it's necessary although there is some lying going on in that case.

I don't recall claiming that they were banned because they're incandescent. But they've still been banned. The criteria that the law uses is rather irrelevant to customers who can't get them anymore because they have been banned.
.....

Congress:

"Henceforth we make it illegal for all two legged animals to cross the street".

JoetheJuggle:

BUT IT'S NOT A BAN ON PEOPLE CROSSING THE STREET! IT'S NOT! THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS! Some people can still cross the street, those with one or no legs! <<repeat the bolded part 100 times because repeating the lie makes it true>>

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, and they are not actually functionally identical to the incandescents which have been banned. Aside from the cost, their spectra aren't the same and they have additional safety concerns that traditional incandescents don't have. So the bulbs that satisfy the requirements are for some people NOT functional equivalents.

So what? They are nonetheless incandescent bulbs currently on the market that comply with the new energy efficiency requirements. Therefore, the law is not a ban on incandescents.

And again, the law doesn't preclude the development of other compliant incandescents that might be developed in the future (with perhaps none of the very slight functional differences you make so much of).

Nobody in this thread is under that misapprehension, and I've even explicitly stated (multiple times) that it's not a total ban on all incandesents.

Again, read the OP. See also the thread title.

 

[mhaze]

I have no respect for people arguing for their, apparently, inherent right to adversely affect our planet. Especially over something as trivial and superfluous as this.

Sure, since I've got an area with 6 high ceiling floodlights, and it would cost $1-2000 USD to redo it to use bulbs allowed under the new law.

Since it is so trivial and superfluous, you will send this money to me, right?

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The variations you have mentioned always COMPARE the lumen output of a new bulb to the traditional incandescent. That's absolutely necessary with LED and with CFL,

and with the new energy efficient incandescents. As I pointed out already, the 70w compliant incandescent is the replacement for the traditional inefficient 100w.

Congress:

"Henceforth we make it illegal for all two legged animals to cross the street".

JoetheJuggle:

BUT IT'S NOT A BAN ON PEOPLE CROSSING THE STREET! IT'S NOT! THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS! Some people can still cross the street, those with one or no legs! <<repeat the bolded part 100 times because repeating the lie makes it true>>

Now what are you blathering on about?

And by the way, I've said it before and I'll say it again, whenever you have to invent fake quotes and put them into your opponent's mouth, it's a pretty sure sign you're arguing against a straw man.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sure, since I've got an area with 6 high ceiling floodlights, and it would cost $1-2000 USD to redo it to use bulbs allowed under the new law.

Wrong on several counts.

First of all, as I've said repeatedly, the law exempts reflector lights from the new energy efficiency standards.

Second, even if the law required you to buy, for example, these:
http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc...splay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053


rather than the traditional 90w flood light (and it doesn't), it wouldn't cost you $1000. It would cost about $30 for 6 bulbs.

And finally, even if the law did pertain to the floodlights in question (and it doesn't since they're reflector lights), the law does not require that you replace the lights you currently have installed. You can leave them there as long as you like.