Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[mhaze]

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 they keep working, if you choose.

There really isn't any use in your arrogant lecturing tone, since I stated at the onset that I solved the problem by stockpiling bulbs that were no longer available.

Ignoring previously stated facts, and technical considerations, and continuing to post nonsense that alleges that halogens or CFLs will do the job is lying by omission on your part. That's because I'd already stated they were not suitable.

Why all the lying, Joe? Is it in the pursuit of some "generally plausible social good"?

 

[JudeBrando]

Have we really lost all logic and reason?

Yes.

And saturated in fascistic corruption.

 

[Bri]

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.

Precisely why bulbs are now required to specify lumens (light output) AND watts (energy use). Looking for a particular wattage of bulb doesn't actually tell how how bright the bulb is. When most bulbs used the same technology (which is no longer the case even between incandescent bulbs) the only way to compare was to assume that two "standard" 65 watt bulbs produced about the same light output.

The variations you have mentioned always COMPARE the lumen output of a new bulb to the traditional incandescent.

Some do, some don't. Some packages of compact fluorescent bulbs will say "15 watts - equivalent light as a standard 65-watt bulb" because the manufacturers of high-efficiency bulbs don't want consumers to think that the lower wattage means that the bulb is significantly dimmer than a less efficient incandescent bulb they might be used to. However, new packaging requirements list actual lumens so that you can compare. With the newer, more efficient bulbs becoming more prevalent, it no longer makes sense to just look at watts.

Congress:

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

Bolding mine. I don't see the comparison since the law only places minimum standards of efficiency on light bulbs. It doesn't make incandescent bulbs (or any other type of bulb) illegal.

Sure, it effectively bans a certain subset of incandescent light bulbs (namely those bulbs that are highly inefficient), but certainly not all incandescent bulbs as your analogy seems to suggest.

BTW, do you also have a problem with gas mileage or safety standards for cars?

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There really isn't any use in your arrogant lecturing tone, since I stated at the onset that I solved the problem by stockpiling bulbs that were no longer available.

Ignoring previously stated facts, and technical considerations, and continuing to post nonsense that alleges that halogens or CFLs will do the job is lying by omission on your part. That's because I'd already stated they were not suitable.

Why all the lying, Joe? Is it in the pursuit of some "generally plausible social good"?

I call shenanigans.

Now you're accusing me of lying when I just showed that your claim that you would have to pay $1000 to $2000 to replace your flood lights with compliant bulbs is completely false.

I listed 3 counts on which you are wrong. Now, Haze, rather than complain about my "tone" and making up more quotes to put in my mouth, would you care to respond to the 3 points I made showing why your claim is wrong?

ETA: Speaking of "tone" have you come up with even a single example of "snarky" language in the EISA?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And saturated in fascistic corruption.

Babbylonian, see what I meant back in post #94?

 

[Babbylonian]

Babbylonian, see what I meant back in post #94?

There's a reason I've pretty much given up typing in this thread, choosing instead to just marvel at the bizarre attachment some people seem to have to crappy light bulbs.

 

[Bri]

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?

Otherwise, why not STFU with the condescending self-righteousness?

The new law doesn't require you to replace your low-efficiency bulbs with compliant bulbs. You can go ahead and use your old ones until they burn out, and then replace them with the higher-efficiency ones if you want. The high-efficiency ones will also save you money over the life of the bulb since they both use less energy and last longer.

ETA: I see JoeTheJuggler already beat me to it. That's what I get for not reading ahead.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

I call shenanigans.

Now you're accusing me of lying when I just showed that your claim that you would have to pay $1000 to $2000 to replace your flood lights with compliant bulbs is completely false. ....

You didn't do that. That's more lying. And it is not a claim, it is a simple statement.

Where you err is in thinking you can make a with a broad brush, make a statement that is going to be correct. But if I were to explain the details of that small remodeling issue, all it would do is show I was right. So with tiny and imperfect sets of facts, Joe, you try to make a stand. That'll result in being wrong a lot of the time.

One more time (fourth time I've said this I believe, and you have ignored it each time, which is precisely LYING BY OMISSION) halogens and CFLS do not do for that job. The desired light tones, dimming and heat is not possible with them. End of subject.

YES it is possible to use CFL or halogen in this application IF ONE IS SATISFIED WITH A LOWER STANDARD OF QUALITY. But you don't say that, you allege "exactly the same" which is transparently false. More lying.

And that's really what you are trying to push for. That someone should accept a lower quality of lighting, in exchange for some sort of "public good", and lying is perfectly acceptable in pursuit of that goal.

But then, truth in advertising as required for sales of consumer products does not apply to Joe.

 

[Bri]

Mhaze, what are your precise standards of quality that you feel couldn't be met with bulbs available under the new efficiency standards? Specifically, what is the light output of your current bulbs and what is the temperature? What shape/base do they have? You also mentioned that they have to be dimmable, correct?

Forgive me if you've already provided this information but I prefer not to look through the thread to find it.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You didn't do that. That's more lying. And it is not a claim, it is a simple statement.

Ah. . . right. A claim is not a statement?

You claimed that this law would force you to spend $1000-2000 to use bulbs that are compliant. That's not true.

Your amended claim is that since you find compliant bulbs to be unsuitable, it will cost you $1000-$2000 to remodel.

But again, reflector lights are exempt from the energy efficiency standards, so if the lights you want aren't available, it's not because of the law. It's probably for the same reason you can't buy a new Polaroid camera.

But if I were to explain the details of that small remodeling issue, all it would do is show I was right.

No it wouldn't, haze. Reflector lights are still exempt from the law. So none of the details of your remodeling issue will make your claim true.

One more time (fourth time I've said this I believe, and you have ignored it each time, which is precisely LYING BY OMISSION) halogens and CFLS do not do for that job. The desired light tones, dimming and heat is not possible with them.

First, I doubt that's true. As Bri is attempting, if you provide those details, I suspect you'll find suitable bulbs in energy efficient bulbs. However, even if it were true, it's still not a problem caused by the law, since reflector bulbs are exempt from the energy efficiency standards. (Sorry to keep repeating this, but you continue to ignore it, Haze.)

But then, truth in advertising as required for sales of consumer products does not apply to Joe.

Is that a personal attack? If it's a response to an argument I've made, please specify. Otherwise you are attacking the arguer and not the argument.

ETA: And I'm still waiting for those examples of "snarky" language from the EISA.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

So if what you meant all along is that the law has the effect of banning only certain kinds of incandescents and it doesn't ban ANY incandescents that comply with the new energy standards, do you think this assertion supports the claim that it's an example of "authoritarianism"?

That's the reason I have been (possibly wrongfully) lumping you in with the people who claim it is a ban on incandescents....well--also the fact that you keep insisting that it is and that that is the same as claiming the effect of the law is to ban some incandescents but not to ban any incandescents that comply with the energy efficiency standards.

Consider these two statements:
1. "It's a ban on incandescents."
2. "The effect of the law is to ban some incandescent even though it bans no incandescents that comply with the energy efficiency standards."

If you consider them to be equivalent, at the very least you should recognize that 1 sounds authoritarian, but 2 does not. The reason for this difference, IMO, points to the fact that they are not equivalent.

 

[Bri]

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

I believe that technically it imposes efficiency standards. It doesn't prevent stores from selling their remaining stock of inefficient light bulbs. It doesn't prevent you from owning inefficient light bulbs. It don't think it even prevents someone from making inefficient light bulbs for their own use. So I don't think it's an actual ban.

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.

If I say "the law bans socks" does it mean a ban on just some socks, or does it mean a ban on all socks? Normally, if I mean just some socks, I would specify. For example "the law bans red socks" in which case I would mean all red socks, not just some red socks.

The statement has been made (multiple times, including the OP) that there is a ban on incandescent bulbs, which certainly implies a ban on all incandescent bulbs. If those making the claim only meant a ban on some incandescent bulbs, then at best they are being unspecific and inaccurate.

In this case, the new law imposes standards on the efficiency of light bulbs, which, yes, effectively bans inefficient incandescent bulbs.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

Mhaze, what are your precise standards of quality that you feel couldn't be met with bulbs available under the new efficiency standards? Specifically, what is the light output of your current bulbs and what is the temperature? What shape/base do they have? You also mentioned that they have to be dimmable, correct?

Forgive me if you've already provided this information but I prefer not to look through the thread to find it.

-Bri

They are simply medium Edison base 90 and 150 watt floodlights, seems to me like these are the PAR30 and PAR40 size bulb. Because they are pure incadescents on a dimmer, we don't need to be concerned with the temperature.

They are used in a room where because the central a/c system doesn't work very well, sometimes it's convenient to add a bit of heat to that room with the bulbs. From the sheer energy standpoint, it's way cheaper to turn a couple bulbs on than run the central a/c.

Other times, they are turned down low, which creates a nice warm effect. That actually can't be had with other dimmables, including the new LEDs. The harsh light from halogens does the complete opposite.

Incidentally, the nice warm effect is a function of the warm yellow that comes on the low side of the dimmer, and it's exactly the "inefficient production of light vs IR" issue that green fascists scream about, that creates this effect.

Other areas, I've optimized for ease of replacing bulbs, energy cost, appearance, etc. This one stays as is.

 

[mhaze]

.....The statement has been made (multiple times, including the OP) that there is a ban on incandescent bulbs, which certainly implies a ban on all incandescent bulbs. If those making the claim only meant a ban on some incandescent bulbs, then at best they are being unspecific and inaccurate.

In this case, the new law imposes standards on the efficiency of light bulbs, which, yes, effectively bans inefficient incandescent bulbs.

-Bri

Frankly this sort of dancing around is what I was complaining about earlier. Look at the way this develops (and it's not the first time):

1. Radical eco fascists agitate to ban incandescent bulbs.
2. A law is passed, and unless it's in California, the lawmakers are not quite as wacko as the environmentalists, some exceptions are put in.
3. The industry targeted is put under further regulation and economic stress. Some factories close, some production moves offshore, some effects intended are achieved, some unintended consequences occur.

In this case the actual reason #1 was to ban incandescent bulbs, so for radical eco freaks now to argue that wasn't the intent of the law is nonsense.... it certainly was THEIR intent, and they achieved it in large measure when the factories closed.

 

[Bri]

They are simply medium Edison base 90 and 150 watt floodlights, seems to me like these are the PAR30 and PAR40 size bulb. Because they are pure incadescents on a dimmer, we don't need to be concerned with the temperature.

The term "temperature" generally refers to the color of the light (from "cool" -- red/yellow to "warm" -- blue/green) so-named because a theoretical perfect radiator of physical light (known as a blackbody) will radiate energy of different colors of the visible range depending on the temperature it's heated to. The color is generally measured in Kelvin from around 2000K (very "warm") to 6800K (very "cool"). If you knew the color temperature of the bulbs you have you could likely find an energy-efficient version that produces a similar quality of light. Compact fluorescents often give off cooler light than incandescents and halogens, although there are flourescents designed to produce different color temperatures.

They are used in a room where because the central a/c system doesn't work very well, sometimes it's convenient to add a bit of heat to that room with the bulbs. From the sheer energy standpoint, it's way cheaper to turn a couple bulbs on than run the central a/c.

Here you seem to be talking about actual heat given off by the bulb. I doubt that heating a room with inefficient light bulbs uses less energy than heating a room with an energy-efficient heater designed for that purpose and lighting the room with energy-efficient bulbs. Energy efficient bulbs do tend to give off less actual heat since heat is wasted energy. If you're really trying to heat and light the room in the most energy-efficient way, I doubt that using low-efficiency bulbs to both heat and light the room will result in the least overall energy use. Also, in the summer when you don't want the extra heat you're going to be using more energy to cool the room.

Other times, they are turned down low, which creates a nice warm effect. That actually can't be had with other dimmables, including the new LEDs. The harsh light from halogens does the complete opposite.

I'm not sure what you mean by "nice warm effect" when dimmed, but traditional incandescent and halogen bulbs give off close to the same color of light (both around 2800 on the light "temperature" scale). And like I said there are a whole range of color temperatures available that comply with the new standards.

Other areas, I've optimized for ease of replacing bulbs, energy cost, appearance, etc. This one stays as is.

I'm not sure what energy efficiency has to do with the ease of replacing bulbs, and obviously more energy-efficient bulbs will optimize energy cost. So you're really left with appearance (i.e. lumens and color temperature). I'm fairly confident that you could find bulbs that fall under the new efficiency standards that meet your brightness and color needs. Although as JoeTheJuggler pointed out the standards don't actually apply to reflectors, optimizing energy use would just be an added benefit.

-Bri

 

[Information Analyst]

It doesn't matter exactly why some people prefer incandescent bulbs, the fact is that they do.

No, people are more used to them. There's a difference.

 

[Bri]

Frankly this sort of dancing around is what I was complaining about earlier. Look at the way this develops (and it's not the first time)...

No idea what any of this has to do with a discussion about the actual efficiency standards that we've been discussing and you've been complaining about. As you should know by now, the standards don't, in fact, ban energy efficient incandescent bulbs. So whether or not "radical eco facists" want to ban all incandescent bulbs regardless of efficiency is completely irrelevant to previous discussion.

That said, I have not seen any evidence of environmentalists wanting to ban all incandescent bulbs regardless of efficiency, so if you actually have some evidence of this please present it.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

The term "temperature" ........

Okay, you didn't get it. With a true incadescnet on a dimmer (not one like a halogen which depends on photon emission by the gas, or a fluorescent in which even if "dimmed" the color temp is constant) the color temperature is selected with the dimmer.

....I'm not sure what energy efficiency has to do with the ease of replacing bulbs, and obviously more energy-efficient bulbs will optimize energy cost. ...-Bri

???

It should be obvious. Suppose that replacing a certain bulb takes a ladder and removing a fixture, putting the new bulb in, putting the fixture back, then getting down and putting the ladder off. My calculations convinced me that in such a case, my hassle cost factor exceeds bulb or energy issues. I've replaced at this point most of these with LED, which will never need replacement. Never need pulling out the ladder, and spending the time and effort to mess with that matter. For three or four exercises with the ladder and a regular (or CFL or halogen) I can pay for one 30-75 buck LED bulb. I'm fine with that because...

Hassle = Over.

Nice!

Side effect: much lower energy cost.

You see, in that darn place, the Real World, there are many other factors that influence lighting choice other than energy efficiency. And one of the absolute worst ways to learn about lighting, and effectively design and utilize it, is to start with an agenda driven thought pattern, such as we see to some extent in this thread.

That's kind of "the short story"....

 

[Bri]

Hassle = Over. Nice!

Side effect: much lower energy cost.

You see, in that darn place, the Real World, there are many other factors that influence lighting choice other than energy efficiency.

Really, if you're trying to make the argument that there are other factors that influence lighting choice than energy efficiency, you shouldn't have listed bulb life as one of the factors, particularly noting that energy-efficient bulbs tend to last longer than inefficient ones.

So...at this point the only argument you've made for inefficient bulbs is that they change color temperature when dimmed. You got anything else?

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

No idea what any of this has to do with a discussion about the actual efficiency standards that we've been discussing and you've been complaining about. As you should know by now, the standards don't, in fact, ban energy efficient incandescent bulbs.....

Sorry, but you are engaging in circuitous reasoning and presenting deceptive and misleading conclusions as reasonable. Here is what has been done.

1. Define a new category of bulb, "energy efficient incandescent bulbs" to exclude all traditional incandescent bulbs of these styles and reliabilities and performance that people are familiar with
2. Ban by law "incandescent bulbs" with exclusions for category #1 above.
3. Argue that everyone should be happy because they can all buy incandescent bulbs, although of the "energy efficient category".

How stupid do you think people are?