Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Something really doesn't make sense to me. With nearly every other technology, everyone seems to be in a rush to get the newest thing.

But on lightbulbs, everyone wants to be slow about changing to a newer light that uses less power.

Why is this?

Obviously "everyone" is an exaggeration, and I just mean an oddly large number of very loud people.

I think they're more vocal than they are numerous.

And I think it's primarily a knee jerk ideological reaction, often to misinformation.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

And yet again, flood lights are reflector lights which are exempt from the new energy efficiency requirements.

If you are finding them harder to find, it's because the market is just moving on to the better technology, and not many people agree with you that the more energy efficient newer technologies are unacceptable. But the EISA is not going to make production and sale of them illegal because they are of a category that is exempt from the energy efficiency requirements.

 

[Ziggurat]

Something really doesn't make sense to me. With nearly every other technology, everyone seems to be in a rush to get the newest thing.

But on lightbulbs, everyone wants to be slow about changing to a newer light that uses less power.

Why is this?

Because the alternatives all have serious drawbacks. CFL's take time to warm up, don't work well in the cold, and many early ones had far shorter life expectancy than advertised. LED's are fantastically expensive. Halogens have the same fire safety concerns which led to those once-popular torchier lights being phased out. And none of them have the same color profiles.

With a lot of technology, the new stuff is unambiguously better than the old stuff. That isn't true of the lighting options we're talking about.

Obviously the second "everyone" is an exaggeration, and I just mean an oddly large number of very loud people.

I've replaced most of my lighting with CFL's, and I have a few LED bulbs too. I bought them by choice. So I'm hardly resistant to change. But I don't want to be forced to change if I don't want to. And there are some applications where I want to use standard incandescents.

 

[Bri]

It should make NO DIFFERENCE to you how I use the electricity that I buy. You can argue that the amount I buy has some relevance, but beyond that, you have no grounds for claiming that using electricity for incandescent lighting is any more harmful than any other use of electricity.

...

But the ban does nothing to ensure that. People can still use as much energy as they want to.

Bolding mine. You're arguing my point quite well, thanks! As you pointed out, the amount of electricity you buy has some relevance. Reducing the amount of energy light bulbs use will decrease overall energy usage compared to the amount of energy that would have been used with less-efficient light bulbs.

What limits people's consumption of electricity is price.

Raising prices would be another way of reducing electricity consumption. So you'd be happier if the government raised taxes on electricity?

That way people can still decide what they want to use electricity for. Dictating what they can use it for but doing nothing to address how much they use won't achieve what you want to achieve.

I'm not sure I understand your argument here. The standards don't restrict people from deciding what they want to use electricity for, and it certainly does address how much electricity they use overall (as you yourself pointed out above).

And if the switch is really as directly beneficial and painless to consumers as you claim, then they'll mostly switch on their own anyways.

Some will switch (many switched before the standards were in place), and others will continue to buy what they're familiar with or the bulb that has the lowest up-front cost without considering overall cost or the bulb with the highest wattage thinking that it will be brightest.

The standards allow companies to concentrate on production of more efficient bulbs rather than putting resources into competing with other companies to produce less-efficient bulbs.

The concept really isn't so foreign. We've placed standards on fuel efficiency for cars for years.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

First of all, traditional bulbs are well understood in terms of watts.

(bolding mine) Correction: WERE well understood in terms of watts when all light bulbs used the same technology. That's certainly not the case now that there are bulbs that produce more lumens per watt than the old incandescent bulb. So I'm not sure I understand your objection to the terms I'm using to refer to bulbs that don't meet the new efficiency standards.

As the Jevons paradox applies only to technological improvements that increase fuel efficiency, policies that impose conservation standards and increase costs do not display the Jevons paradox.

Interesting theory. So I'll let Congress know that you're for increasing taxes on electricity in addition to the new efficiency standards.

Even assuming Jevons paradox is correct, I'm not sure it applies here. I don't think everyone is going to start using more lights because of the new standards. But you're right -- we should probably raise taxes on electricity just to be sure.

And it simply isn't relevent whether it is compliant. It is you that think in those terms, not I. I simply provided the complete, correct technical description of the bulb. You know, like what you would give an electrician? Someone in the Real World? Or a lighting engineer? Or even an average homeowner. Those sorts of people.

Based on your description, an electrician or lighting engineer would likely ask you whether you meant a "traditional" incandescent or a more energy-efficient incandescent. Otherwise she or he would have no way of knowing what type of light bulb you were referring to.

Right, and that's what is so hilarious. You (and Joe) think you can "help". But your "help" involves a sort of moralizing about light bulbs based on some concepts of human values from a green perspective.

I'm not moralizing (I can't speak for Joe). You were complaining about the new standards forcing you to stockpile the old bulbs. You can understand how I thought you were unhappy about it. But I guess some people just like to complain.

-Bri

 

[Ziggurat]

Bolding mine. You're arguing my point quite well, thanks! As you pointed out, the amount of electricity you buy has some relevance. Reducing the amount of energy light bulbs use will decrease overall energy usage compared to the amount of energy that would have been used with less-efficient light bulbs.

There's no guarantee of that, because usage patterns can change too. And infringing on my freedoms in order to do that isn't justified when much more direct and effective mechanisms are available.

Raising prices would be another way of reducing electricity consumption. So you'd be happier if the government raised taxes on electricity?

I'd consider it much more justifiable if reducing energy usage is the objective, both because it doesn't infringe on my freedoms and because it's more effective. And raising electricity rates isn't the only alternative option either. We could also put an additional tax on low-efficiency bulbs. We could even use the proceeds to subsidize high-efficiency bulbs. You can create a strong incentive to switch without needing to deny options to consumers.

I'm not sure I understand your argument here. The standards don't restrict people from deciding what they want to use electricity for, and it certainly does address how much electricity they use overall (as you yourself pointed out above).

No, it does not address how much electricity consumers use. That was my point. For example, 100 Watt standard incandescents have been banned, but a consumer might use two 60-Watt incandescents instead of a sinlge 100-Watt bulb, increasing electricity usage.

There's no guarantee that the standards can achieve what you want them to achieve, precisely because they do not address energy consumption.

Some will switch (many switched before the standards were in place), and others will continue to buy what they're familiar with or the bulb that has the lowest up-front cost without considering overall cost or the bulb with the highest wattage thinking that it will be brightest.

The argument that you have to dictate consumer's choices because they're stupid isn't an acceptable argument to me.

The concept really isn't so foreign. We've placed standards on fuel efficiency for cars for years.

And they're far less effective than gas prices in driving consumers to choose fuel-efficient cars.

 

[Bri]

CFLs must be cheap where you are. Here they cost as much as 8 or 9x an incandescent. And that's for the cheap crappy ones.

From a study by US News and World Report:

How do I save money, when a CFL costs six times as much as an old-fashioned bulb?

Each cone-shaped spiral CFL costs about $3, compared with 50 cents for a standard bulb. But a CFL uses about 75 percent less energy and lasts five years instead of a few months. A household that invested $90 in changing 30 fixtures to CFLs would save $440 to $1,500 over the five-year life of the bulbs, depending on your cost of electricity. Look at your utility bill and imagine a 12 percent discount to estimate the savings.

-Bri

 

[Blue Mountain]

There's no guarantee of that, because usage patterns can change too. And infringing on my freedoms in order to do that isn't justified when much more direct and effective mechanisms are available.

I'd consider it much more justifiable if reducing energy usage is the objective, both because it doesn't infringe on my freedoms and because it's more effective. And raising electricity rates isn't the only alternative option either. We could also put an additional tax on low-efficiency bulbs. We could even use the proceeds to subsidize high-efficiency bulbs. You can create a strong incentive to switch without needing to deny options to consumers.

"Your freedom to swing your arms ends where my nose begins."

Your precious freedom to use hugely inefficient methods of lighting your home infringes on my freedom to enjoy a future where we don't have to pay exorbitant electricity rates. By improving the efficiency of electrical appliances now we can avoid a huge expense building new power plants in the future, be they hydro-electric (not too many good sites left), coal (with their attendant output in greenhouse gases), or nuclear (Three Mile Island and Fukushima, anyone?)

In case you haven't noticed, consumers are denied options all the time, often by the business sector you admire so much. Have you tried to buy a laptop recently with a matte finish on the monitor, or with a serial port? A CRT TV or computer display? A telephone with a dial on it? A roll of Kodachrome film? A two quart soft drink in a glass bottle? A 2 gigabyte hard drive? A game of lawn darts?

 

[Malerin]

From a study by US News and World Report:



-Bri

I've yet to have a CFL last even close to five years. I have two in my kitchen (small kitchen). Ironically, the one above the sink just quit yesterday. I can't remember exactly, but I know it's been less than two years since I changed my incandescents out.

ETA: As another poster suggested, if you want them to go away, slap a tax on them.

ETTA: I was just changing the CFL out and it flickered and the power was off. What's up with that? They have capacitors in them?

 

[Bri]

There's no guarantee of that, because usage patterns can change too. And infringing on my freedoms in order to do that isn't justified when much more direct and effective mechanisms are available.

You'll have to lobby your congressman to raise taxes on electricity. Good luck with that!

I guess these standards infringe on your freedoms much the same way safety standards for cars infringe on your freedom to drive a car that might explode if someone hits you from behind.

If you lived on an island by yourself, you could have complete freedom, but when you live in a society with laws, each law will infringe on your freedom in some way. In this case the average person probably won't mind that much if their freedom to waste energy is taken away as long as their light bulb adequately lights their room.

I'd consider it much more justifiable if reducing energy usage is the objective, both because it doesn't infringe on my freedoms and because it's more effective. And raising electricity rates isn't the only alternative option either. We could also put an additional tax on low-efficiency bulbs. We could even use the proceeds to subsidize high-efficiency bulbs. You can create a strong incentive to switch without needing to deny options to consumers.

If such taxes had the desired effect of eliminating usage of low-efficiency light bulbs, you would have the exact same choices you will have with the efficiency standards you're complaining about. Manufacturers will stop making the inefficient bulbs as demand for them dropped. But I have no problems with these solutions. Write your congressman or congresswoman.

No, it does not address how much electricity consumers use. That was my point. For example, 100 Watt standard incandescents have been banned, but a consumer might use two 60-Watt incandescents instead of a sinlge 100-Watt bulb, increasing electricity usage.

Why would someone do that? People tend to use light bulbs that produce the desired amount of light. If a 60-watt bulb that meets the new standards produces the same amount of light as an old 100-watt incandescent, you would probably replace your 100-watt incandescent with a single new 60-watt bulb wouldn't you? If you had wanted twice the light, you would have used two 100-watt incandescents (or maybe a single higher-wattage incandescent) to begin with.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I've yet to have a CFL last even close to five years. I have two in my kitchen (small kitchen). Ironically, the one above the sink just quit yesterday. I can't remember exactly, but I know it's been less than two years since I changed my incandescents out.

I've had a similar problem with certain brands. I replaced them with a different brand and indeed haven't had to change them since. Most CFL's have a 5-year warranty so if they don't last that long, call the manufacturer and complain.

ETA: As another poster suggested, if you want them to go away, slap a tax on them.

I have no problem with that, but politically it probably wouldn't fly. Plus, if successful, taxes would reduce your choices to only efficient bulbs anyway as demand for the inefficient bulbs drop and they are no longer manufactured.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

We could also put an additional tax on low-efficiency bulbs. We could even use the proceeds to subsidize high-efficiency bulbs. You can create a strong incentive to switch without needing to deny options to consumers.

Riiiiight.

I'm sure if the EISA hadn't passed you would be in favor of a tax on inefficient bulbs that was high enough to phase out their use. And you wouldn't find it "authoritarian" at all.

Sorry--pull the other one, it's got bells on.

And how exactly is a tax "more direct" than setting energy efficiency standards? If anything, it seems that the point of it is to be less direct. To let people who are wealthy enough or uncaring enough indulge in what they consider to be a convenience while effectively banning the practice for everyone else.

 

[mhaze]

You'll have to lobby your congressman to raise taxes on electricity. Good luck with that!

I guess these standards infringe on your freedoms much the same way safety standards for cars infringe on your freedom to drive a car that might explode if someone hits you from behind.
-Bri

False statement, followed by false argument. It's you, not me or Zig, who is with a group that persistently argues for higher electricity taxes. It's basically, you and other green oriented energy moralists.

He merely points out a fact concerning the irrationality of assuming a connection between traditional incandescent bulbs and lower worldwide or nation wide or household energy usage.

....If a 60-watt bulb that meets the new standards produces the same amount of light as an old 100-watt incandescent, you would probably replace your 100-watt incandescent with a single new 60-watt bulb wouldn't you? If you had wanted twice the light, you would have used two 100-watt incandescents (or maybe a single higher-wattage incandescent) to begin with.

-Bri

Because you didn't want to have that light go dark, and it was inconvenient to change bulbs. You know, there might be a reason why some fixtures have more than one socket?

Because it's in the child's playroom and he throws things around and has broken bulbs before and you don't want him inhaling mercury?

Because the supposedly better one costs much more and you've had some experiences with them not being so great?

Because you've got dimmer switches in that room that don't work with CFLS?

All kind of reasons.

Duh.

.....

Even assuming Jevons paradox is correct, I'm not sure it applies here. I don't think everyone is going to start using more lights because of the new standards. But you're right -- we should probably raise taxes on electricity just to be sure.....

Denial. There is no issue with the "Jevons paradox being correct" except in your head. It may be argued whether it applies to this issue. I have not claimed it did, but I made a strong suggestion in that direction.

But we've certainly seen flashlight sales zoom since introduction of LED, and then zoom once more with the new CREE style LED. Jevons paradox applies to flashlights and hence to batteries, their power source.

The fact of Jevons paradox makes it highly questionable that the environmental lobbies will even find the results of THE BAN ON BULBS to be what they thought it would be. You thought it was a certainty that banning the bulbs would decrease energy use, I've shown with Jevon's that it is not a certainty, and that the result may well be opposite.

That means in turn that you and environmentalists are really clueless about the effect of the law banning bulbs.

That is one thing that makes this issue completely unlike some of the other supposedly parallel issues mentioned such as auto smog control systems.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And they're far less effective than gas prices in driving consumers to choose fuel-efficient cars.

Not really. CAFE standards have indeed limited consumer choices by limiting what auto makers can offer. Consumer choices are only made within those offerings.

At any rate, it's not a zero sum thing. We currently do both wrt to fuel-efficiency in cars. We tax gasoline AND we have fuel efficiency standards.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

False statement, followed by false argument. It's you, not me or Zig, who is with a group that persistently argues for higher electricity taxes.

Re-read the post in question. Zig indeed suggested a tax on electricity as preferable to the EISA standards for energy efficiency in some lightbulbs. He also seconded the idea several have said is preferable, a tax on inefficient lightbulbs.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Because you didn't want to have that light go dark, and it was inconvenient to change bulbs. You know, there might be a reason why some fixtures have more than one socket?

That doesn't really change the question Bri is asking. You can also replace all the bulbs in a fixture with more efficient bulbs and have that same redundancy benefit.

Because it's in the child's playroom and he throws things around and has broken bulbs before and you don't want him inhaling mercury?

Do you suppose there's nothing toxic inside traditional lightbulbs? The small amounts of mercury in a CFL aren't nearly as great a hazard as you might think. If there's a concern about a kid breaking bulbs, I might suggest using a cover of some sort to protect the bulbs too. CFLs work just fine behind a traditional bedroom light cover.

Because the supposedly better one costs much more and you've had some experiences with them not being so great?

And your mind is closed to the possibility that the second generation of these bulbs has improved?

Because you've got dimmer switches in that room that don't work with CFLS?

There are dimmable energy efficient bulbs already on the market.

All kind of reasons.

But do any of these reasons outweigh the effects of burning the equivalent amount of coal required to power inefficient lightbulbs? Aren't they pretty much just a matter of relatively minor preferences and convenience?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've replaced most of my lighting with CFL's, and I have a few LED bulbs too. I bought them by choice. So I'm hardly resistant to change. But I don't want to be forced to change if I don't want to. And there are some applications where I want to use standard incandescents.

So your objection is primarily ideological, right? As I mentioned, I think that's largely the case. (Haze, I think is an exception rather than a typical opponent.)

The applications where you want to use traditional incandescent bulbs--are any of them applications subject to the EISA standards?

 

[mhaze]

....But do any of these reasons outweigh the effects of burning the equivalent amount of coal required to power inefficient lightbulbs?...

That's a made up presumption and in my case completely false. We got nuclear here. the differential in environmental impact here from eco-fascist preferred light bulbs would be exactly, precisely, ZERO.

Not that I think your coal argument has any merit if that was not the case, because I am drifting toward the position that Jevons paradox does apply to this case, and eco-fascist bungling with control on bulbs will increase energy consumption, not decrease it.

In any case, I've been puzzled for some with by the rabid, obsession with bulbs by some people like you. A sincere desire to root out every last remaining EVIL BULB and replace it with a GOOD BULB.

I hereby suggest a term for this behavior:

Bulb Truther.

 

[sadhatter]

Well the fabric of society still appears intact in Australia even though people no longer have the god-given right to purchase wasteful old technology.

Takin one for the team , seems to be a premise that is completely lost on some people.

Sure if the one your taking is eating grey paste for the rest of your life, yeah, probably something to fight against. But when it is a minor inconvenience at worst, why not? We all have to live on the planet. And the sooner we start, the better the returns will be.

The only worse example i can think of is the people that are losing it over the fact that places don't give plastic bags for free anymore. It is such a small thing to do that can help out the environment, and the earlier we start the more return we get for the investment.

 

[Aepervius]

But we've certainly seen flashlight sales zoom since introduction of LED, and then zoom once more with the new CREE style LED. Jevons paradox applies to flashlights and hence to batteries, their power source.

The fact of Jevons paradox makes it highly questionable that the environmental lobbies will even find the results of THE BAN ON BULBS to be what they thought it would be. You thought it was a certainty that banning the bulbs would decrease energy use, I've shown with Jevon's that it is not a certainty, and that the result may well be opposite.

You have only pointed out that it is a possibility. But due to market saturation, it is quite possible no such rebound will happen. You have yet to demonstrate it will happen.