Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[mhaze]

....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.

And my central ac heating system is more efficient... but to use it means it heats the entire house, instead of the area that is a bit chilly, and in which six incandescent flood lights do nicely on occasion.

What is efficient for 2500 square feet is not efficient for 250.

 

[excaza]

And my central ac heating system is more efficient... but to use it means it heats the entire house, instead of the area that is a bit chilly, and in which six incandescent flood lights do nicely on occasion.

Congratulations. I'm sure that's the only possible way to heat said area.

And, like I said before, the ban on incandescents does not extend to heat lamps.

What is efficient for 2500 square feet is not efficient for 250.

Which is why most homes have multiple zones.

 

[mhaze]

Congratulations. I'm sure that's the only possible way to heat said area.

And, like I said before, the ban on incandescents does not extend to heat lamps.


Which is why most homes have multiple zones.

Around here, very few houses have the flow regulators downstream of the AC in the vents. But that wouldn't make any difference.

That is very useful in a split level or two story home, where 10-15F difference can easily exist between floors. This assumes, though that you want to get more uniform results from running the AC in different areas.

And I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about applying some local IR in a small area so you don't have to turn the central unit on.

And one last time: that fact that IR bulbs were not banned is completely irrelevant, because nobody is going to replace light bulbs in existing fixtures with IR bulbs. So we are talking about areas where a regular incandescent bulb serves a dual use.

By the way, there is another part of my home where we turned a bedroom into a gym....there the issue is excess heat (the reverse of the former, we don't want to turn the central ac cooler just to get that one room right) so we used four of the $30 LED bulbs of about 40 watt equivalency in that application.

Although I'm not opposed entirely to CFLs, most of them around here as they burned out (way way before their promised lifetime of course) have been replaced with something else. ALL exterior lights including landscape lighting are LED. There are a number of T5 fluorescent fixtures, those are really nice in bathrooms and kitchens. There are some halogen MR16 bulbs on dimmer circuits.

All these have a place in my opinion, and that certainly includes the traditional incandescent.

 

[excaza]

Like I already said, companies are just rebranding their existing incandescent bulbs as 'heat bulbs' to get around the EU ban. Could you please read what is being posted?

There are plenty of solutions to your problems that don't require stockpiling incandescents. That you choose not to use them is your own fault.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

Exactly. By definition, heat from light bulbs other than heat lamps (which are exempt) is waste.

Also, I wonder if people who use lightbulbs to heat a room change the lightbulbs in the summer time so that they're not wasting energy twofold: by producing excess heat from a light source, and running the AC to remove that excess heat.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Bri and Joe then argue that halogen incadescents or other products fill your needs so you should be happy blah blah blah. They dance around the "ban" by taking refuge in the energy standards which were in fact designed to ban those bulbs.

Hold the phone a second there, haze.

Here are a list of false claims you have made:

The EISA contains "snarky" language. I keep asking you for examples, but you can't provide them, because I suspect you were simply misusing the word "snarky". Otherwise your claim that a law uses legalese is simply not very shocking, and can be said of virtually any large legislation.

You claim the law is a ban of incandescents even though compliant incandescents are already on the market and nothing in the law will prohibit any future incandescent light bulb technology.

You claim halogen lights were not incandescents and did not use filaments.

You claimed the law would force you to spend $1000-$2000 to remodel since you couldn't use any energy efficient bulbs because you found them inadequate (though when pressed, you have yet to provide anything like a reasonable explanation for why they aren't acceptable). You ignore the fact that nothing in the law will require you to change existing lightbulbs.

You continue to claim that floodlights will have to comply with the law even though the law specifically exempts all reflector lights.

[ETA: You also claimed that your wasting electricity has no impact on the environment because you get all of your electricity from a nuclear power plant. This ignores, of course, the fact that the generation of electricity at a nuclear plant and transmission of that electricity to your house does affect the environment AND the fact you seem to have acknowledged that you do not in fact get all your electricity from a nuclear plant.]

This is the sort of criticism you are trying to arm wave away by saying "blah blah blah".

Yes, setting energy efficiency standards for standard size, brightness, color, etc. lightbulbs was intended to ban inefficient lightbulbs (except for all the exempted categories of lightbulbs) from the market. It is still not a ban on incandescent bulbs.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And I'm amazed that anyone is even making the argument based on heating with standard lightbulbs (as opposed to heat lamps which are exempt).

First, standard light bulbs and fixtures aren't designed for heating rooms. They're terribly inefficient at it. They're usually located in places optimal for lighting but terrible for heating. Excess heat in light fixtures is a danger and an issue designers have to work to control.

Second, there's the seasonal issue I mentioned. The slight noticeable boost to heating from standard lightbulbs in the winter time is a liability in the summer time, and results in double inefficiency (burning energy to create heat you don't want, then burning more energy to remove that heat).

And finally, I wonder if the same kind of argument could be applied to producing a fuel-inefficient passenger car? GM could argue they should be allowed to make such a car because someone somewhere might want to run the car just to generate electricity by attaching an inverter to the car and using it to generate power to run their electric clothes dryer. The problem is that sort of dreadfully inefficient "dual use" as Haze calls it is exactly what we don't want.

I'll go out on a limb and say I have no problem if Congress would decide to pass a law against trying to help heat your home with inefficient standard incandescent lightbulbs. Not only is this practice not a reason to reject the EISA energy efficiency standards, I would say it's such a dumb and wasteful practice that it wouldn't bother me in the least if it were made illegal. (Though, of course, the EISA does not do so.)

 

[elgarak]

Around here, very few houses have the flow regulators downstream of the AC in the vents. But that wouldn't make any difference.

That is very useful in a split level or two story home, where 10-15F difference can easily exist between floors. This assumes, though that you want to get more uniform results from running the AC in different areas.

And I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about applying some local IR in a small area so you don't have to turn the central unit on.

And one last time: that fact that IR bulbs were not banned is completely irrelevant, because nobody is going to replace light bulbs in existing fixtures with IR bulbs. So we are talking about areas where a regular incandescent bulb serves a dual use.

By the way, there is another part of my home where we turned a bedroom into a gym....there the issue is excess heat (the reverse of the former, we don't want to turn the central ac cooler just to get that one room right) so we used four of the $30 LED bulbs of about 40 watt equivalency in that application.

Although I'm not opposed entirely to CFLs, most of them around here as they burned out (way way before their promised lifetime of course) have been replaced with something else. ALL exterior lights including landscape lighting are LED. There are a number of T5 fluorescent fixtures, those are really nice in bathrooms and kitchens. There are some halogen MR16 bulbs on dimmer circuits.

All these have a place in my opinion, and that certainly includes the traditional incandescent.

Funny. I have had the complete opposite experience. My main living room lamp (with three bulbs) would break one of the bulbs every month, like clockwork, while I still had incans in it. I switched to CFLs more than six years ago; I changed them again shortly thereafter to get better colored CFLs, but since then the CFLs are still working (though may have lessened their output a bit).

So much for anecdotal evidence.

As for incans still having a place... I disagree, for general household lighting. If the main purpose is to get visible photons, the device in question should not put out 90 to 95% invisible photons.

(I'm willing to make exceptions for certain specialists [medical professionals and photographers are the first to spring to mind] who need a simple way of getting 'correct' colors, 'correct' meaning the way the colors have been standardized using incandescents as they were the only game in town.)

 

[mhaze]

Funny. I have had the complete opposite experience. My main living room lamp (with three bulbs) would break one of the bulbs every month, like clockwork, while I still had incans in it. I switched to CFLs more than six years ago; I changed them again shortly thereafter to get better colored CFLs, but since then the CFLs are still working (though may have lessened their output a bit).

So much for anecdotal evidence.

As for incans still having a place... I disagree, for general household lighting. If the main purpose is to get visible photons, the device in question should not put out 90 to 95% invisible photons.

.......yes, consumers do seem to have different experiences with cfl noodle bulbs. But to your credit, you come straight out with the control that you would exercise and why. Unlike people here that are disingenouously engaging in double talk, misframing the arguments, misdirecting and otherwise concealing their motives.

Quality in lighting does not have to be individual choice, you know the central comittee knows better. Choice is analogous to inefficient. For that matter, it would be highly energy efficient to eliminate variation in clothing.

Have everyone wear blue pajama uniform, that is best for planet.

Praise Mao!

 

[This is The End]

Like I already said, companies are just rebranding their existing incandescent bulbs as 'heat bulbs' to get around the EU ban. Could you please read what is being posted?

This is the part I'm still confused about. They can just add 'outdoor' or 'heat bulbs' to the traditional 100 watt bulbs and we can still buy them and use them like always?

Also, since (afaik) over 100 watts are excempt, they could just change all the traditional 100 watt bulbs to 101 watts... Then they wouldn't even have to put 'outdoor' or 'heat bulb' on the package.

 

[This is The End]

And I'm amazed that anyone is even making the argument based on heating with standard lightbulbs (as opposed to heat lamps which are exempt).

I'm not amazed that you didn't quote where I said that I was talking about northern climates that use a specific type of electric heater. I even said it multiple times because I knew you would bring up the warm climate summer months.

I was originally responding to a post (by Bri I believe) that implied it was 90% waste in all cases.

Also, though what someone said about a coil of wire being a coil of wire isn't completely true, it is way more correct than when Bri said the electric heater is "far more efficient". I believe he already backed off the "far more" in a later post...

 

[Babbylonian]

(I'm willing to make exceptions for certain specialists [medical professionals and photographers are the first to spring to mind] who need a simple way of getting 'correct' colors, 'correct' meaning the way the colors have been standardized using incandescents as they were the only game in town.)

The thing is, professionals tend to have filters that they place over lights to get different color temperatures anyway. So, even if the character of the bare bulb is different, it's just a matter of putting a different gel over it than one would for an incandescent. In fact, having participated in some independent films, moving away from incandescents would be a real boon for those working with professional lighting (from those working with the lights themselves to the actors/models under them) since they get very hot. Good gels aren't cheap either, and they can melt with extended use/misuse (e.g., somebody not turning off the lights between setups/during breaks).

 

[mhaze]

Funny. I have had the complete opposite experience. My main living room lamp (with three bulbs) would break one of the bulbs every month, like clockwork, while I still had incans in it. I switched to CFLs more than six years ago; I changed them again shortly thereafter to get better colored CFLs, but since then the CFLs are still working (though may have lessened their output a bit).

So much for anecdotal evidence.

As for incans still having a place... I disagree, for general household lighting. If the main purpose is to get visible photons, the device in question should not put out 90 to 95% invisible photons.

.......yes, consumers do seem to have different experiences with cfl noodle bulbs. But to your credit, you come straight out with the control that you would exercise and why. Unlike people here that are disingenouously engaging in double talk, misframing the arguments, misdirecting and otherwise concealing their motives.

Quality in lighting does not have to be individual choice, you know the central comittee knows better. Choice is analogous to inefficient. For that matter, it would be highly energy efficient to eliminate variation in clothing.

Have everyone wear blue pajama uniform, that is best for planet.

Praise Mao!

 

[This is The End]

source?

i read more than 90% of lead car batteries are recycled in the USA.

also you bulbs can be brought to every Home Depot shop in the USA and they take it back for recycle, same with Ikea and other stores. so where is the problem?

That's why I specifically said AA, AAA type batteries. Like the new CFLs, only a fraction of a percent of those make it anywhere besides a normal trash can (at least in the USA).

Also, you brought up lead car batteries, those are big and heavy. You also get a rebate for turning in an old one when you get a new one.

 

[Richard Masters]

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.

No. I get migraines from LED back-lighting in computer displays. I've already verified this. I had to give up 2 laptops I bought for this reason.

For some reason CFLs are not adequate in domestic light-bulbs either.

 

[mhaze]

This is the part I'm still confused about. They can just add 'outdoor' or 'heat bulbs' to the traditional 100 watt bulbs and we can still buy them and use them like always?

Also, since (afaik) over 100 watts are excempt, they could just change all the traditional 100 watt bulbs to 101 watts... Then they wouldn't even have to put 'outdoor' or 'heat bulb' on the package.

basically correct, illustrates how ridiculous this law is.

But do not worry, the resident socialists can dream up another layer of regulation and control to more precisely fine tune your behavior so that you are Gooder.

 

[mhaze]

No. I get migraines from LED back-lighting in computer displays. I've already verified this. I had to give up 2 laptops I bought for this reason.

Very interesting, the cause is discussed here.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1528230

 

[mhaze]

Like I already said, companies are just rebranding their existing incandescent bulbs as 'heat bulbs' to get around the EU ban. Could you please read what is being posted?

There are plenty of solutions to your problems that don't require stockpiling incandescents. That you choose not to use them is your own fault.

except I do not have problem, those who perseverate on instructing others on correct light bulbs have problem, like no life.

But defining behavior on light bulb Choice as 'fault' is moralizing on light bulbs.

Such as Bulb Truthers do.

 

[DC]

except I do not have problem, those who perseverate on instructing others on correct light bulbs have problem, like no life.

But defining behavior on light bulb Choice as 'fault' is moralizing on light bulbs.

Such as Bulb Truthers do.

ironic, coming from a CTnut like you.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is the part I'm still confused about. They can just add 'outdoor' or 'heat bulbs' to the traditional 100 watt bulbs and we can still buy them and use them like always?

Also, since (afaik) over 100 watts are excempt, they could just change all the traditional 100 watt bulbs to 101 watts... Then they wouldn't even have to put 'outdoor' or 'heat bulb' on the package.

No. The law is written so that it covers a range of lumens. A 101w traditional incandescent would be in the same category. For that range of lumens, it stipulates a maximum wattage (energy used).