Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Your anecdotal evidence differs from mine in this regard. I've seen no evidence of this in the Walmart, Target, Lowe's, and Home Depot stores near me, where the shelves are still stocked with a vast majority of high-efficiency bulbs, plus some specialty bulbs and some old incandescents.

I haven't been paying attention to what's on the shelves at stores over the years, but I would be surprised if it were as haze claims--that rough service bulbs have never been sold in big box stores until now, and now they're being sold in quantities that suggest they're being used to replace general service lights.

But anyway, if that happens, the law provides for a petition to the Secretary to modify the exclusions to close such a loophole. Which seems to me a far simpler way of doing it than the amount of legalese that would be required to close the loophole without making all rough service bulbs subject to the new standards.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

By the way, one of the venues I perform at regularly has lighting primarily from a whole bunch of reflector flood lights. When they were using traditional incandescent types, I would say a bulb needed replacing every time I went there (3-4 times per month). And sometimes, 4 or 5 would be burnt out, leaving horrible dark areas. For a good 6 months now, they're using halogens (and have added 2 spotlights which I think are also halogens), and I've only seen one bulb burn out yet--just last week.

I haven't noticed any great improvement in the heat produced, though--it's still a LOT.

 

[mhaze]

Nope. You argued that your stockpiling bulbs was proof that these bulbs were banned. You also argued that they weren't available in local stores because of this law, even though the bulbs are excluded from the new standards that will start to take effect in January.
....

That's some sick and twisted thinking, coupled OF COURSE with misrepresentation.

I simply said that when they ceased being stocked on the shelves after the ban, I bought them mail order. I also said that it wasn't even an unexpected consequence of the law, but an intended consequence. It's quite irrelevant to me whether the law bans a particular bulb, or whether it ceases to be available as a result of the factory closing as a result of the law. It's either available or it's not. And basically, the factory closings is what you and other greenies actually want, because those are factories that make "inefficient bulbs".

..... the Secretary to modify the exclusions to close such a loophole. Which seems to me a far simpler way of doing it ....

No more "mr. nice guy", huh?

But I'm happy that you've shown your true colors as an advocate of "authoritarian controller" mechanisms with the issue of banning additional bulb types...not that the free market won't dance right around you and your buddies, in spite of your efforts to make things "not appear Draconian".

Of course it will.

 

[mhaze]

Joe has missed the point of the clause which allows a single individual to petition for bans of currently excluded bulbs. That the agency has the power to modify the list of banned bulbs.

The law has the actual effect of handing the entire decision making process over to a regulatory agency of what light bulbs you can or cannot use. Congress is out of the loop.

...that is a false statement. It's evidence that you're not reading my posts.

Actually I have. First you completely missed the impact of the 2020 target, and thought the 2012 and 2014 targets were all there were. Whether intentionally by lying from omission, or just being ignorant, you argued that the law should "not appear Draconian". In fact, I had to point out the 2020 rules. Then you didn't understand what the law actually does in your above bolded section.

There is a big difference between legislating a group of bulbs to be banned and legislating the power to a regulatory agency to determine which bulbs to be banned. Don't you think? In the latter case, you are fat and happy under Obama, but when we get an adult into the Oval Office, your little greenie authoritarian plans vanish overnight....no legislation necessary....but a large area of consumer choice has been placed in the hands of a regulatory agency, which I would be opposed to on principle in either case.

 

[mhaze]

As Joe pointed out, nobody is forcing you to use CFL's.

And I think we already discussed this, but even if everyone threw their CFL's into the trash as you suggest, they would still amount to a net reduction in mercury in the environment. The mercury released into the environment by power plants in the U.S. for the amount of electricity saved by a CFL exceeds the tiny amount of mercury in a CFL....

You know, that is an incredibly bad argument. Possibly the worst one in this thread so far. By your logic, all that matters is "mercury in the environment". That has NOTHING to do with what I said, which was "contaminate landfills" and additionally, areas downstream from underground water movement. Just like areas around chemical plants are contaminated. By your logic, the fallout from Japan is insignficant because we measure the average change in radioactivity over the whole planet, not in local areas of Japan.

And it's just not me. I've said that I was tossing them in the regular trash (I do) to make a point. A LOT of people do that and will continue to. You or the propaganda mills won't train or educate them out of habits like that.

 

[Bri]

...not that the free market won't dance right around you and your buddies, in spite of your efforts to make things "not appear Draconian".

Of course it will.

I've seen no evidence that the market cares that much for inefficient and short-lived bulbs. In Germany, there is a company marketing incandescents as "heat balls" to get around the regulations. But there's no evidence that the company will actually make much money doing so, and the "heat balls" will have to increase in price as demand for incandescents decreases (on top of already being more expensive over the life of the bulb than efficient alternatives).

Time will tell, but I doubt there's going to be a need to close any loopholes. The lack of demand for inefficient bulbs will probably do that by itself.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

Your anecdotal evidence differs from mine in this regard. I've seen no evidence of this in the Walmart, Target, Lowe's, and Home Depot stores near me, where the shelves are still stocked with a vast majority of high-efficiency bulbs, plus some specialty bulbs and some old incandescents.

-Bri

Given that you've consistently ignored evidence contrary to your beliefs in this thread, that's only you being consistent.

I haven't been paying attention to what's on the shelves at stores over the years, but I would be surprised if it were as haze claims--that rough service bulbs have never been sold in big box stores.....

"Never" is a big word. They have stocked one or two types of regular bulbs, but NEVER "rough service" floodlights. That's SERIOUSLY a specialty bulb.

I guess, just like you claimed earlier that the disappearance from shelves of certain types of bulbs wasn't related to the law, you can just also claim that this appearance of certain types of bulbs is just circumstance.

We'll all understand.

 

[Furcifer]

At any rate the argument that this law is not good or is authoritarian because some hypothesized other law doesn't exist is not valid reasoning.

Would it be wrong to arrest and prosecute one murderer simply because we haven't arrested and prosecuted all murderers?

It does expose the hypocrisy however.

It also suggests this is yet another case or the rich getting what they want and the poor suffer the consequences.

 

[mhaze]

....Time will tell, but I doubt there's going to be a need to close any loopholes. The lack of demand for inefficient bulbs will probably do that by itself.

-Bri

Well, what I've seen in Lowes is increased shelf space to LED over the last 6 months, where previously there was CFL. Now of late, serious shelf space for these "rough service incadescents", and again, less shelf space for CFL.

That's the prime space near the end cap where people hit fist, by the way.

Specialty bulbs, mostly unchanged amount of space.

 

[Bri]

You know, that is an incredibly bad argument. Possibly the worst one in this thread so far. By your logic, all that matters is "mercury in the environment". That has NOTHING to do with what I said, which was "contaminate landfills" and additionally, areas downstream from underground water movement. Just like areas around chemical plants are contaminated. By your logic, the fallout from Japan is insignficant because we measure the average change in radioactivity over the whole planet, not in local areas of Japan.

This isn't my argument. Most experts agree that the environmental impact of the tiny amount of mercury in CFL's would be exceeded by the impact of producing the energy they save.

And it's just not me. I've said that I was tossing them in the regular trash (I do) to make a point. A LOT of people do that and will continue to. You or the propaganda mills won't train or educate them out of habits like that.

You're not suggesting that a lot of people will toss them in the garbage just to make a point, are you? People might do it for the same reason people don't recycle -- because it's easier not to. But I don't think people will throw them into the garbage out of protest (if that's what you're saying).

Even if people do throw them in the trash, and even if CFL's were the only alternatives to inefficient incandescents, they would still result in reduced impact on the environment overall.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Well, what I've seen in Lowes is increased shelf space to LED over the last 6 months, where previously there was CFL. Now of late, serious shelf space for these "rough service incadescents", and again, less shelf space for CFL.

That's the prime space near the end cap where people hit fist, by the way.

Specialty bulbs, mostly unchanged amount of space.

Anecdotal evidence that seems to contradict my own anecdotal evidence. Oh, but I forgot, your anecdotal evidence is somehow more valid. Right.

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

This isn't my argument. Most experts agree that the environmental impact of the tiny amount of mercury in CFL's would be exceeded by the impact of producing the energy they save.

This is based on some faulty assumptions about the production of electricity.

What I think is important here is if you live in a place like BC or Northern Quebec, even here in Ontario, where the electricity comes from hydroelectric or nuclear, there isn't any mercury offset. Combine that with the number of HVAC heating days in these areas and there really isn't any reason to introduce mercury into that environment.

The energy savings is still there, to some degree, but it really isn't "greener".

 

[mhaze]

This isn't my argument. Most experts agree that the environmental impact of the tiny amount of mercury in CFL's would be exceeded by the impact of producing the energy they save.....Even if people do throw them in the trash, and even if CFL's were the only alternatives to inefficient incandescents, they would still result in reduced impact on the environment overall.

-Bri

You are (1) listening to propaganda or (2) misunderstanding what you have heard or (3) purposely misrepesented my argument.

In any case, you've just repeated what I said has got to be the worst argument made so far in the entire thread. Tens of thousands of bulbs in a landfill certainly can contaminate an area. Nobody is going to dispute that, otherwise, just think. Why would they be specifying special handling procedures?

And no, I don't and I don't think other people will toss CFLs into the garbage out of protest. I'm simply not going to waste 3 seconds or 3 minutes doing something special with them. And that's the way most people are. The ones that know about the mercury, or half way care about it, and a lot don't.

 

[mhaze]

Anecdotal evidence that seems to contradict my own anecdotal evidence. Oh, but I forgot, your anecdotal evidence is somehow more valid. Right.

-Bri

Could well be that my evidence is more valid. I buy quite a few bulbs for different projects, and have for several decades watched them, their development, their pricing.

Not many people do that.

 

[Bri]

This is based on some faulty assumptions about the production of electricity.

Such as?

What I think is important here is if you live in a place like BC or Northern Quebec, even here in Ontario, where the electricity comes from hydroelectric or nuclear, there isn't any mercury offset. Combine that with the number of HVAC heating days in these areas and there really isn't any reason to introduce mercury into that environment.

The energy savings is still there, to some degree, but it really isn't "greener".

I haven't seen any information about studies related to BC or Northern Quebec. The experts I was referring to were specifically addressing CFL's as they relate to mercury emissions in the United States.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

You are (1) listening to propaganda or (2) misunderstanding what you have heard or (3) purposely misrepesented my argument.

Or (4) you're wrong.

In any case, you've just repeated what I said has got to be the worst argument made so far in the entire thread. Tens of thousands of bulbs in a landfill certainly can contaminate an area. Nobody is going to dispute that, otherwise, just think. Why would they be specifying special handling procedures?

I didn't say they were harmless and that nobody should recycle them. I said that overall CFL's result in a significant net reduction of mercury in the environment, and that most experts agree that they are far better for the environment than incandescents.

And no, I don't and I don't think other people will toss CFLs into the garbage out of protest. I'm simply not going to waste 3 seconds or 3 minutes doing something special with them. And that's the way most people are. The ones that know about the mercury, or half way care about it, and a lot don't.

Again CFL's are better than incandescents as far as mercury in the environment, but of course it's better to recycle CFL's than not.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Could well be that my evidence is more valid. I buy quite a few bulbs for different projects, and have for several decades watched them, their development, their pricing.

Not many people do that.

Your evidence is anecdotal, so saying that it could be "more valid" than another piece of anecdotal evidence is still saying next to nothing.

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

Such as?

Peak demand isn't met by coal plants, they carry baseload. Peakers are primarily natural gas fired plants which don't emit mercury. It's not as easy as saying 48% of the country gets its electric from coal, therefore the reduced demand will result in less coal being burned.

I haven't seen any information about studies related to BC or Northern Quebec. The experts I was referring to were specifically addressing CFL's as they relate to mercury emissions in the United States.

-Bri

It doesn't take a study to show that if you get 90% of your electric from hydro you don't get 48% from coal (which is the figure those mercury studies use if I remember correctly)
None the less these areas that don't get 48% of their electric from coal are seeing the same ban as areas that get +90% from coal.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's some sick and twisted thinking, coupled OF COURSE with misrepresentation.

I simply said that when they ceased being stocked on the shelves after the ban, I bought them mail order. I also said that it wasn't even an unexpected consequence of the law, but an intended consequence.

Rubbish. You submitted it as proof that the law is a ban on incandescents.


You've been proven wrong, and you dug in your heels, denied plain facts, and avoided direct queries about the bulbs you were stockpiling.

No more "mr. nice guy", huh?

Non sequitur much?

But I'm happy that you've shown your true colors as an advocate of "authoritarian controller" mechanisms with the issue of banning additional bulb types...not that the free market won't dance right around you and your buddies, in spite of your efforts to make things "not appear Draconian".

You're blathering incoherently again.

You claimed, "The law has the actual effect of handing the entire decision making process over to a regulatory agency of what light bulbs you can or cannot use. Congress is out of the loop." I pointed out that the law does no such thing. Instead it lays out a lot of very specific regulation. Congress actually wrote and passed all these details.

And Congress is no more out of the loop than it ever is. (What Congress passed, Congress can repeal.) Your claims that this law somehow changes our system of government into an authoritarian state are false.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Could well be that my evidence is more valid. I buy quite a few bulbs for different projects, and have for several decades watched them, their development, their pricing.

Not many people do that.

Maybe so, but you don't merit any benefit of the doubt based on expertise or experience given that you claimed halogens don't have filaments!