Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[This is The End]

Except that Joe is right and the link's description isn't technically accurate. Halogens are a type of incandescent (which basically just means that it uses a filament). The link appears to be trying to distinguish between a halogen incandescent and the inefficient incandescent that people may be more used to.

Another example of the double speak. You know very well that 99% of people distinguish incandescent from halogens, just because it technically is one is nit picking.

Even by your own admission, Joe's link is wrong! So even people selling them make the distinction.

This is exactly what you are doing when trying to say this isn't a ban on 99% of the light bulbs used in the past 100 years.

 

[Furcifer]

This is from Oct 2009

http://www.pure-global-air.com/LED-Marvel.html



It is doable so I'm not sure where the stall is at this point. Up-front price maybe?

I think it's kinda like Betamax and people invested in CFL's and now their reluctant to change again so soon and admit they goofed. Except this time, unlike Betamax was to VHS, I think LED's are better. In that sense it's worse, at least the Betamax backers were right in a tech sense.

I honestly believe if you put your mind to it you can go to LED's and save a few bucks, it's just not as easy at CFL's. In terms of convenience CFL's are probably still better.

That's my 2 cents.

 

[This is The End]

I've seen this a couple times in pursuing this thread, I don't know how it arose, but halogens aren't considered incandescent. Not in any book I've ever read, they may be similar in operation and they may both fit the technical definition but for all intents and purposes they aren't the same thing.

3body, they are arguing on a technicality, just like they are in arguing that this isn't a ban.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Another example of the double speak. You know very well that 99% of people distinguish incandescent from halogens, just because it technically is one is nit picking.

Even by your own admission, Joe's link is wrong! So even people selling them make the distinction.

This is exactly what you are doing when trying to say this isn't a ban on 99% of the light bulbs used in the past 100 years.

Pesky nitpicking? To point out that there are compliant incandescent bulbs in responding to falls claims that the law is a ban on incandescent light bulbs?

No one denies that the law will effectively ban the production (not sale or use) of the most commonly used size of traditional incandescent bulbs that don't fall into any of the many exemption categories.

It most definitely will not ban 99% of the bulbs used in the past 100 years. First, the law doesn't require anyone to remove a lightbulb from a fixture. Second, most of the bulbs actually used over the past 100 years are long gone, so I take your statement to be referring to types of bulbs. And most types of bulbs will not be subject to the energy efficiency guidelines.

And again, the law establishes energy efficiency guidelines that apply to all technologies. Yes, the result is intended to be a phase out of inefficient standard size and type of light bulbs.

 

[Furcifer]

Wikipedia "halogen lamp" entry:


Wikipedia "incandescent light bulb" entry:

and


On this page, Sylvania refers to Halogen lamps as "superior incandescent technology".

Topbulb.com says:


I could go on and on.

Halogens are indeed incandescent bulbs. [ETA: The most pertinent argument is that they work by causing a filament to incandesce.]

And they illustrate the point that the law does not single out incandescents in establishing its energy efficiency guidelines.

I don't deny any of this. I'm just saying from an industry standpoint when you talk halogen you talk one thing and when you talk incandescent you talk another.
They're never lumped together in discussion. If you said you had incandescent headlights on your car people would call you a fool.

It's kinda like if someone asked you to pass them a Kleenex and you said "We don't have any" and they said "right there" and you said "That isn't a Kleenex, Kleenex is a name brand ,that's a paper tissue"

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

3body, they are arguing on a technicality, just like they are in arguing that this isn't a ban.

It's not a technicality insofar as how the law is characterized either supports or refutes the claim that the law is authoritarian or draconian or "Liberal Authoritarian" (despite its having been passed with bipartisan support and signed into law by Bush).

I've gone over this before.

Consider the following 2 statements:

1. The law is a ban on incandescents.

2. The law establishes energy efficiency guidelines on standard size, type, function, color, brightness, etc. lightbulbs that will effectively phase out traditional incandescent bulbs of standard size, type, etc.

You at least seem to recognize that they're not equivalent statements. One is certainly at least a more accurate characterization of the law's language, intent and effect. (And arguably, only one is in fact true.)

The other is at the very least spun so as to make the law sound outrageous and authoritarian.

And yes, people did read or hear statements like number 1 and mistakenly believe that the law would ban all incandescents. That's the logically correct reading of that statement. But it's not true.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't deny any of this. I'm just saying from an industry standpoint when you talk halogen you talk one thing and when you talk incandescent you talk another.
They're never lumped together in discussion. If you said you had incandescent headlights on your car people would call you a fool.

It's kinda like if someone asked you to pass them a Kleenex and you said "We don't have any" and they said "right there" and you said "That isn't a Kleenex, Kleenex is a name brand ,that's a paper tissue"

No, it's not the same. If someone claimed a law banned all facial tissues, and I could show that Kleenex facial tissues are not banned, I would have successfully refuted the claim.

And when people make the statement that the law is a ban on incandescents, it does lump all incandescents.

FWIW, the high efficiency halogen bulbs weren't on the market when the law was passed. They are almost surely the result of accelerated R & D and at least a perceived demand for a sort of niche market because the law passed. Just a few years back, halogens were primarily used for specialty bulbs of one sort or another (that are exempt from the energy efficiency standards the law establishes).

 

[Furcifer]

3body, they are arguing on a technicality, just like they are in arguing that this isn't a ban.

Oh, OK.

It's one of those illegal to sell OK to possess deals here in Ontario as far as I know. Kinda like fireworks. I guess Halogens are like snakes, still fireworks but not really fireworks

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't deny any of this.

Yes, you did:

I've seen this a couple times in pursuing this thread, I don't know how it arose, but halogens aren't considered incandescent.

I have proven without a doubt that they are.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Oh, OK.

It's one of those illegal to sell OK to possess deals here in Ontario as far as I know. Kinda like fireworks. I guess Halogens are like snakes, still fireworks but not really fireworks

No. The law in question (the EISA here in the U.S., that is) allows merchants to sell out of existing stocks. It calls for a ban on production. Not on sales, ownership or use.

I have seen opponents suggest that building inspectors will require you to remove the bulbs you have in your light fixtures in painting this as an authoritarian law. (Not here--but I can substantiate that this perception exists, if you wish.)

ETA: And I don't think your fireworks/snakes analogy is apt either. The EISA merely establishes energy efficiency standards. It is no more a ban on incandescent bulbs than CAFE mpg minimums are correctly called a "ban on Hummers"--or any other particular model of car. FWIW, fireworks bans usually do ban sales, possession and use of the banned items. I suppose the only thing similar is that such bans probably exempt some products (like snakes and sparklers? I don't know the specifics.). The EISA has a long list of types of light bulbs that are exempt from the new energy efficiency guidelines. (Curiously enough, the type of bulb Haze has been stockpiling is almost certainly an exempt type, though he refuses to admit it.)

 

[Furcifer]

No, it's not the same. If someone claimed a law banned all facial tissues, and I could show that Kleenex facial tissues are not banned, I would have successfully refuted the claim.

And when people make the statement that the law is a ban on incandescents, it does lump all incandescents.

FWIW, the high efficiency halogen bulbs weren't on the market when the law was passed. They are almost surely the result of accelerated R & D and at least a perceived demand for a sort of niche market because the law passed. Just a few years back, halogens were primarily used for specialty bulbs of one sort or another (that are exempt from the energy efficiency standards the law establishes).

I'm just saying it sounds a little disingenuous, I think people understand their car headlights aren't "banned" but their trusty 100W frosted is.

Whether they realize they are both incandescent seems a little petty. But we're a few pages in and that's how things get...

But I'm not here to judge, I'm here to say LED's rule and CFL's drool!!!

 

[Furcifer]

I have proven without a doubt that they are.

*sigh

Yes I can, I can give you published articles that clearly differentiate halogens from incandescent lights.

I'll look up the actual name but the Lighting Engineering Institute of America or some such body differentiates the two. I've seen it.

You're really pushing this technicality beyond what's necessary. I can assure you if you called your contractor and complained the electrician installed incandescents and showed up and you pointed at halogen lights he'd bitch slap you.

But you are right, I don't deny halogens are technically incandescent lights. You only have to look at them and compare the two to be sure.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm just saying it sounds a little disingenuous, I think people understand their car headlights aren't "banned" but their trusty 100W frosted is.

To repeat a question Haze asked earlier, then why is he stockpiling floodlight bulbs? All reflector lights are exempt.

Also, earlier Haze and someone else agreed that they thought a manufacturer could produce a 101w traditional lightbulb to circumvent the law's intention. In fact, since the law isn't written as a ban on a 100w (starting in Jan. 2012) to 40w (by 2014) traditional incandescent standard size, color, etc. bulbs, their notion was wrong. The law establishes a series of brightness ranges (again only for these standard size, type, color, etc.) bulbs that roughly correspond to the lumen ranges for 100w through 40w. For each range, a maximum wattage is specified to ensure energy efficiency (really in terms of wattage per lumen range). So a traditional 101w incandescent bulb that doesn't fall into an exempt class would not comply with the energy efficiency guidelines and the regs would apply to it--so its production would be banned.

But I'm not here to judge, I'm here to say LED's rule and CFL's drool!!!

Personally, I've had great success with CFLs for over 4 years now. But I do anticipate switching over to LEDs at some point.

And to the "authoritarian" claims, the tiny inconveniences this law might impose (and most of them are based on misconceptions or evaluation of lightbulb technology from at least a few years ago) should be weighed against the benefits of a substantial reduction in energy use.

 

[Furcifer]

It is no more a ban on incandescent bulbs than CAFE mpg minimums are correctly called a "ban on Hummers"--or any other particular model of car.

There's no ban on hummers, there's a ban on solicitation.

(that's a tension relieving double entredre)

Everything you're saying is technically correct Joe, I don't dispute that. Rest assured you are right. I'm just saying you're right but basically everyone else is wrong. In a world of majorities you can see where this may conflict.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I can assure you if you called your contractor and complained the electrician installed incandescents and showed up and you pointed at halogen lights he'd bitch slap you.

Fair enough, except I do hope you recognize the difference in context between a law and the context you present here.

FWIW, I wouldn't ever hire an electrician to install the kind of light bulbs that this law applies to. It really is only limited to the standard size, brightness, color, use, etc. bulbs. It won't apply to appliance light bulbs, reflector lights of any kind, outdoor lights, rough use lights, colored lights, lights brighter than the range of a traditional 100w incandescent or dimmer than the range of a traditional 40w, candelabra bulbs, and so on.

 

[Furcifer]

And to the "authoritarian" claims, the tiny inconveniences this law might impose (and most of them are based on misconceptions or evaluation of lightbulb technology from at least a few years ago) should be weighed against the benefits of a substantial reduction in energy use.

OK, forget the rest of the crap, let's talk about this.

Do you thin energy use has gone down? In the world of "peak usage" doesn't this just mean you don't use the electric so someone else does, and does it cheaper?

Just because you and I don't use the electric doesn't mean it doesn't get used. That's the nature of generation. If you don't use it, the market drops the price and instead of you using it some company stays a few hours later and uses it at a reduced rate.

Discuss.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There's no ban on hummers, there's a ban on solicitation.

Ba-doop clash!

 

[Furcifer]

Fair enough, except I do hope you recognize the difference in context between a law and the context you present here.

FWIW, I wouldn't ever hire an electrician to install the kind of light bulbs that this law applies to. It really is only limited to the standard size, brightness, color, use, etc. bulbs. It won't apply to appliance light bulbs, reflector lights of any kind, outdoor lights, rough use lights, colored lights, lights brighter than the range of a traditional 100w incandescent or dimmer than the range of a traditional 40w, candelabra bulbs, and so on.

Sorry, if it was a technical legal discussion I may have missed it and you may have a point. Clearly if we're talking "technical" then it's different story. I
m speaking of generalities and slang basically.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Just because you and I don't use the electric doesn't mean it doesn't get used. That's the nature of generation. If you don't use it, the market drops the price and instead of you using it some company stays a few hours later and uses it at a reduced rate.

If overall demand is less than it would otherwise be (which is the correct standard--not the claim that demand will have to be reduced), then the power companies will generate less electricity than they otherwise would.

By the way, back to the halogen bulbs for a moment. I'm not sure you're aware of what we're talking about. It's bulbs like these:

http://www.google.com/products/cata...TanRBeXL0QHI7fi-AQ&ved=0CDgQ8wIwAg#ps-sellers

ETA: And lest haze make a fuss that the product isn't identified as an "incandescent" bulb across the top of that web page, neither is this one:
http://www.google.com/products/cata...YiYEMTh0QHV1qSnAQ&ved=0CIoBEPMCMAE#ps-sellers

 

[Furcifer]

If overall demand is less than it would otherwise be (which is the correct standard--not the claim that demand will have to be reduced), then the power companies will generate less electricity than they otherwise would.

By the way, back to the halogen bulbs for a moment. I'm not sure you're aware of what we're talking about. It's bulbs like these:

http://www.google.com/products/cata...TanRBeXL0QHI7fi-AQ&ved=0CDgQ8wIwAg#ps-sellers

ETA: And lest haze make a fuss that the product isn't identified as an "incandescent" bulb across the top of that web page, neither is this one:
http://www.google.com/products/cata...YiYEMTh0QHV1qSnAQ&ved=0CIoBEPMCMAE#ps-sellers

Well it isn't, it's a halogen

The other one 404'd on me.

I don't think the change has reduced peak demand though. In fact there's still considerable growth in the generation business.

Since you only use lights when yur at home, if you're at work you don't need them. Smooth out the peak demand and you end up at work longer basically.

Plus there's other issues about how plants col down and the losses to due cooling. Turbines like to run, not stop and start. But I digress...