Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[excaza]

That a "coil of wire is just a coil of wire?" If that were the case, all "coils of wire" would produce the same amount of heat.

They do.

 

[Bri]

excaza:

First of all the statement to which I was referring in my comment was "a coil of wire is a coil of wire." Some "coils of wire" are more efficient at producing heat than others.

Not necessarily, if you have a fan with the same power draw as the one in the space heater you're going to have the same circulation.

If, if, if... Sure, there are probably conditions where a light bulb would be more efficient, but overall that isn't the case in the United States, particularly since you don't want the extra heat during the summer.

Doesn't discuss the heating question.

Sure it does. Specifically, the part beginning:

Finally, I would like to address the point that the heat generated by an incandescent light bulb is not wasted completely.​

Both discuss heating using electricity vs. using a fossil fuel.

Again, please read them more carefully. Both articles are about light bulbs used for heating. One of them is titled "When does it not make environmental sense to switch from incandescent lightbulbs to CFLs?" and the other is "Re:Switching off incandescents a no-brainer?"

So again I ask, what basis do you have for your assertion that a space heater is better at generating heat than an incandescent light bulb? Both are using a coil of wire, and both are designed to be as inefficient as possible in order to generate the most heat with a given power draw.

As I said, bulbs tend to heat the air near the ceiling and produce heat during the summer.

(edit: I do want to note that I think the heating argument in favor of incandescents is a stupid one, I just don't agree with your statement that a space heater is better at generating heat than a bulb)

Why do you think it's a stupid idea?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

They do.

Not all incandescent light bulbs produce the same amount of heat per unit of energy. Nor do all space heaters produce the same amount of heat per unit of energy.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Also, it is a well known fact that where a house or building has an outside facility such as a pump house or a laundry, that just putting a incandescent bulb in and leaving it on during freezing winter nights will prevent things in that room from freezing. That works really, really well. Another use for light bulbs for heat is for small areas where there are animals, whether pets or stock. Then there are greenhouses, and single plants during the winter freeze, etc.

Which is why, as you know, bulbs designed for heating are excluded.

-Bri

 

[excaza]

Not all incandescent light bulbs produce the same amount of heat per unit of energy. Nor do all space heaters produce the same amount of heat per unit of energy.

This statement directly contradicts the physical law provided to you.

First of all the statement to which I was referring in my comment was "a coil of wire is a coil of wire." Some "coils of wire" are more efficient at producing heat than others.

Again, this directly contradicts the physical law provided to you. I would like to discuss my comment as well, but you keep discussing things that have no relevance to it.

If, if, if... Sure, there are probably conditions where a light bulb would be more efficient, but overall that isn't the case in the United States, particularly since you don't want the extra heat during the summer.

Please stop parroting the articles and actually read my argument. With the same power input, the amount of heat generated by a space heater is the same as that of an incandescent light bulb.

Sure it does. Specifically, the part beginning:

You mean the part where it says to insulate your house and use a fossil fuel heating source instead of electric heat? Are you even reading what you've posted?

Again, please read them more carefully. Both articles are about light bulbs used for heating. One of them is titled "When does it not make environmental sense to switch from incandescent lightbulbs to CFLs?" and the other is "Re:Switching off incandescents a no-brainer?"

Please read them more carefully. Both are comparing the efficiency of electric heat vs. that of fossil fuel heat. We are not discussing environmental concerns.

As I said, bulbs tend to heat the air near the ceiling and produce heat during the summer.

And, as I said, this is irrelevant to both my statement and my question to you.

Why do you think it's a stupid idea?

Because my oil furnace is more efficient for generating heat. This is irrelevant when comparing different methods of electric heat.

 

[Bri]

This statement directly contradicts the physical law provided to you.

I'm saying that not all bulbs and heaters that could be used to heat a room are equal in efficiency for that purpose. Some light bulbs produce more heat than others for the same amount of light. Some heaters have fans and thermostats that make them more efficient at heating a room. Bulbs are usually used for light year-round and are therefore waste a lot of energy during the summer when only light is needed. Therefore, in most circumstances it is going to be more energy efficient to heat a room with a space heater and light a room with an energy-efficient light.

So if by "a coil of wire is a coil of wire" you were talking about the physics of an actual coil of wire (rather than the efficiency of various devices when used for heating) then I'm not sure what that has to do with what I was saying, which is that in general it's more efficient to use a conventional heater than light bulbs for heating.

That said, I stand corrected on this:

Not all incandescent light bulbs produce the same amount of heat per unit of energy. Nor do all space heaters produce the same amount of heat per unit of energy.

Except for the addition of fans and the like, heaters and light bulbs produce the same amount of heat per unit of energy. So if that was your point -- you got me there!

ETA: You never said why you think the heating argument in favor of incandescents is a stupid one.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

Which is why, as you know, bulbs designed for heating are excluded.

-Bri

Which is completely irrelevant, since I'm talking about uses for ordinary bulbs, and in particular, dual use functions where we do not want or need or likely don't even have a separate circuit for another bulb.

You know, like the laundry room with one washer, one dryer, and one bulb socket in the ceiling?

As I said, bulbs tend to heat the air near the ceiling and produce heat during the summer.

No they do not. Radiant IR (bulbs) impinges objects then is re emitted, with a tiny fraction by CO2 and water vapor in the air. Convective electric heating devices heat air. In either case, air by the ceiling is hot because hot air rises.

Someone else brought up this point earlier in the thread, but it's not a very good argument. Using a space heater is far more efficient than a light bulb to heat a room. You're better off using an energy-efficient light bulb to light the room plus a space heater to heat the room.

-Bri

No, that is a completely false statement. "Better off"???????

You are making a general assertion without knowing anything. Size of room, temperature differential exibited and desired, frequency of use as a heater, electrical costs.

When you make a general assertion you are usually going to be flat wrong when faced with the specific circumstance.

Further you presume that someone cares about your definition, harping and moralizing on "efficiency". Many things are in actual use very efficient, that by one laboratory measure or another are not "efficient".

Then there is the simple issue of "I want to do it that way, and you don't want me to".

And that's really what it's all about, isn't it? That is, for a Bulb Truther.

 

[Bri]

When you make a general assertion you are usually going to be flat wrong when faced with the specific circumstance.

I never claimed that there weren't specific circumstances when only the old-style incandescent bulbs might be better. The standards simply don't apply to a vast majority of those cases. You have yet to describe a situation where an inefficient incandescent is required but prohibited by the standards, but I still believe it when you say there are some.

Then there is the simple issue of "I want to do it that way, and you don't want me to".

Too bad for you. Seriously. If you lived on an island by yourself you could do things exactly the way you want to do them. I want to drive my car on the sidewalk, but I'm not allowed to. That's part of the price I pay to live where I live.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

Non-incandescent light bulbs give me horrible headaches within 15 minutes of exposure. I don't know if LED lighting in light bulbs is the same as that used in LED backlit computer displays, but if it is, this is a huge problem for me.

You may be experiencing migraines from the rapid flicker that is part of flourescent technology. I get that with the CFL to some degree. It would be impossible for me to use a CFL as a "study lamp".

LED has no flicker.

Halogen for me is too white a light to be very useful as a study lamp.

 

[mhaze]

evidence? the ban is not yet in power.

i didn't want to close factories. who actually wanted that?

ETA: btw i notices your new label "bulb truthers" that is very funny.

Eco-fascists are happy with incadescent bulb factories being shut down. That's the basic way to get rid of something coming from a capitalist market, regulate and legislate until the profit is gone then the factories shut down or go offshore.

Thanks. I'm happy that you too see the merit in Bulb Truther. We're not just talking about someone who has that glazed eye hypnotized by Al Gore the CFL profit here. The phrase Truther doesn't apply to naive and gullible but well meaning people who are concerned about the planet.

We're talking about Truthers, who ignore contrary evidence and use complicated, convoluted arguments to try to keep their basic premise alive. Someone who obsessively seeks to get rid of that very last incadescent bulb left in a house mentioned by a poster on the internet (me, in this thread). You just flat can not make this craziness up.

The Bulb Truther.

 

[mhaze]

...too bad for you. Seriously. If you lived on an island by yourself you could do things exactly the way you want to do them. I want to drive my car on the sidewalk, but I'm not allowed to. That's part of the price I pay to live where I live.

-Bri

Wrong again. I AM doing what I want to do, whether you like it or not. I have a big stockpile of bulbs(remember, that's what started this silly discussion?), and I will continue to do what I want.

So too bad for YOU.

 

[excaza]

Except for the addition of fans and the like, heaters and light bulbs produce the same amount of heat per unit of energy. So if that was your point -- you got me there!

It seems we were just talking past each other

ETA: You never said why you think the heating argument in favor of incandescents is a stupid one.

Yes I did, my oil heater is more efficient. And I can control it directly without impacting anything else, like the ability to see in the dark.

 

[excaza]

We're talking about Truthers, who ignore contrary evidence and use complicated, convoluted arguments to try to keep their basic premise alive.

I'm not sure if you realize, but in your militant anti-"eco fascist" ranting, you're doing this very thing.

 

[Bri]

Wrong again. I AM doing what I want to do, whether you like it or not. I have a big stockpile of bulbs(remember, that's what started this silly discussion?), and I will continue to do what I want.

So too bad for YOU.

Your stockpiling doesn't really affect me. You were the one complaining about the efficiency standards forcing you to stockpile inefficient incandescent bulbs.

In fact, I haven't stated an opinion about your stockpiling. For the record, I think it's silly, but you still have the right to be silly.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

It seems we were just talking past each other

You were right and I was wrong on the point about the amount of heat per unit of energy, but we were talking past each other on the larger point (where we apparently agree).

-Bri

 

[Ziggurat]

Your stockpiling doesn't really affect me.

The only way his stockpiling doesn't affect you is if his use of incandescents doesn't affect you. But the entire premise of your argument in support of the ban is that such use DOES affect you.

In fact, I haven't stated an opinion about your stockpiling. For the record, I think it's silly, but you still have the right to be silly.

But not a right to buy incandescents after a certain date.

I see no consistency in your position.

 

[Bri]

The only way his stockpiling doesn't affect you is if his use of incandescents doesn't affect you. But the entire premise of your argument in support of the ban is that such use DOES affect you.

His stockpiling doesn't affect me because very few people will go to the trouble of stockpiling inefficient bulbs. Therefore, the result of the standards will likely be as intended despite the occasional stockpiling by a few people or people trying to sell the old incandescents as "heat balls" or whatever.

But not a right to buy incandescents after a certain date.

If you mean incandescents that don't meet the minimum efficiency requirements, then correct.

I see no consistency in your position.

You'll have to point out the inconsistency in my position.

-Bri

 

[Ziggurat]

His stockpiling doesn't affect me because very few people will go to the trouble of stockpiling inefficient bulbs.

Very few people would buy inefficient bulbs if you levied a tax on them instead of banning them.

 

[mhaze]

I'm not sure if you realize, but in your militant anti-"eco fascist" ranting, you're doing this very thing.

Doubtful. Eco-fascists are blunt about wanting other people to do what they want them to do based on a top down set of mandates or directives.

Nobody said fascists couldn't be completely logical, but that can't be said of a Truther.

I on the other hand don't really feel a need to order or convince other people to do what I think is best.

In fact, with their antics to save the world one light bulb at a time (1.7M google hits) they provide some actual utility -

....comic relief.

 

[Bri]

Very few people would buy inefficient bulbs if you levied a tax on them instead of banning them.

I think we've covered that ground already. Blame the Republicans, I guess.

-Bri