Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[ZirconBlue]

As I sit here right now I'm not certain what I could do to ensure a broken or burned out CFL would get recycled. Honest. And I'm sure no one else in the household would either.

Your best bet is a home improvement or hardware store. In the US, Lowe's, Home Depot, Ace Hardware, etc. provide CFL recycling. You can search here for your nearest option.

 

[mhaze]

Your best bet is a home improvement or hardware store. In the US, Lowe's, Home Depot, Ace Hardware, etc. provide CFL recycling. You can search here for your nearest option.

Search here fore nearest option...

BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Hey, dude, here's yer "nearest option":

No Google search required.

1. Pick up bulb
2. Go to kitchen.
3. Place hand with bulb over trash can.
4. Release bulb from hand.
5. Walk away.

Now, they said you'd feel really guilty if you did this. They said it'd be evil against humanity and Momma Gaia. And the Wrath of Khan and other unspeakable horrors would visit you and your household.

But just try it. All those horrible things....don't happen. It's all made up.

 

[DC]

Search here fore nearest option...

BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Hey, dude, here's yer "nearest option":

No Google search required.

1. Pick up bulb
2. Go to kitchen.
3. Place hand with bulb over trash can.
4. Release bulb from hand.
5. Walk away.

Now, they said you'd feel really guilty if you did this. They said it'd be evil against humanity and Momma Gaia. And the Wrath of Khan and other unspeakable horrors would visit you and your household.

But just try it. All those horrible things....don't happen. It's all made up.

you are like Dumb and Dumber in one person amazing

 

[mhaze]

Well see the Kyoto thread for examples of the US government spending close to 100M and getting some useless real estate and some pipes. Or how about the EU losing 8B trying to trade carbon.

In 2-3 years when LED's are posed to replace incandescent bulbs I wouldn't squawk at the measure. But come one, CFL's are like a 30 year old tech. Why now?

Why now? That one's easy, it's because "Urgent Action Now" is required to keep the atmospheric CO2 level getting beyond a "Point of No Return". This is always ten years off, according to ALGORE'S famous "Sliding Ten Year TimeTable of Doom".

That means that a true believer thinks he needs to control your behavior now. Right now. In this thread. Across the Internet.

It's really serious stuff, you see. Saving the Planet.

 

[DC]

Why now? That one's easy, it's because "Urgent Action Now" is required to keep the atmospheric CO2 level getting beyond a "Point of No Return". This is always ten years off, according to ALGORE'S famous "Sliding Ten Year TimeTable of Doom".

That means that a true believer thinks he needs to control your behavior now. Right now. In this thread. Across the Internet.

It's really serious stuff, you see. Saving the Planet.

LOL All Gore has nothing to say in the field of science.
i guess you should search for better sources, actually scientific sources rather than politicans.

 

[Furcifer]

LEDs are a 40 year old tech. Incandescents are a 130 year old tech.

Not really. The high output LED's which make the technology practical are relatively new.

In case you are wondering why CFLs instead of LEDs, take a look at the performance chart below. Which would you choose?

That's a comparison of incandescent lights and CFL's. I happen to have a couple LED's that put out about 300 lumen per watt, so I know which one I would pick.

 

[mhaze]

LOL All Gore has nothing to say in the field of science.
i guess you should search for better sources, actually scientific sources rather than politicans.

No need to look for "better sources", since the dim witted morons of the left....don't seem to want or need....a better source.

And we're not discussing science, but dim bulbs being strong armed on populations by dim witted fools. And in this environment, AllGore fits right in. Right at home with the bulb truthers. Right here.

 

[DC]

No need to look for "better sources", since the dim witted morons of the left....don't seem to want or need....a better source.

And we're not discussing science, but dim bulbs being strong armed on populations by dim witted fools. And in this environment, AllGore fits right in. Right at home with the bulb truthers. Right here.

lol you are beyond any hope.

 

[Bri]

And you've got to keep them for something like 3 years to offset the mercury. If they break before that, which far too many people have experienced, they're a net polluter.

Of course, 99% of them last more than 3 years, and some of those that don't are recycled. So they result in a net reduction in mercury.

Well I believe that personally, but it has never been proven. There's no breakdown of sales by manufacturer and Hg content. Again, I'm sure there are CFL's with very little mercury, in cardboard packaging, but most people are buying them at WalMart or the Dollar Store and I don't know what they're packing.

Are you saying that it's never been proven that CFL's have less mercury in them than they did 20 years ago? I couldn't find any information about how much mercury was in CFL bulbs when they were introduced but by 2007 CFL's had around 4 to 5 mg of mercury. In 2007, Wal-Mart announced that it was reducing the amount of mercury in the CFL's they sell to under 2 mg. There are now CFL's that have only 0.8 mg of mercury.

Nope. You'd think so, but there isn't a single research paper on the subject. I've searched the DOE database (Information Bridge, great site).

That's provably false, since most of the arguments in favor of the heat claim are from a research paper entitled To Switch, or Not to Switch: A Critical Analysis of Canada's Ban on Incandescent Light Bulbs by M. Ivanco, B.W. Karney, and K.J. Waher. The paper specifically pertains to Canadian climate and cleaner sources of electricity that are prevalent in Canada. Nonetheless, there is plenty of criticism of the paper to be found on the Internet.

Meanwhile, plenty of scientists have spoken about the topic of whether or not it would be better to heat a house with incandescent bulbs. Here's one example:

Some people have translated this into the advice that incandescent light bulbs are good in winter because they supplement the heat to your home, making up for the additional energy they draw. I asked James Wang, Ph.D., a climate scientist at Environmental Defense, to calculate whether this was indeed true. His answer was no.​

Again, here's it's 9/12 months. I bet Michigan and most of the border states are the same. I'm guessing as far south as Georgia the heating degree days are > the cooling degree days.

The problem is that even if there are more cold days than hot days, that doesn't mean that incandescents would necessarily be more efficient. Incandescents are no more more efficient at heating than a space heater, and in fact may be less so since bulbs are usually up near the ceiling so they're not going to heat very well at floor-level. Light bulbs also don't have thermostats to turn them off when the room has reached the desired temperature. Having a very efficient light that uses less electricity and a space heater with a thermostat may be more efficient even in cold weather and incandescents are definitely less efficient in warm weather.

I don't believe that. The EPA has a pony in the race and the Sierra Club would push cooking indoors with horse poop if they thought it would save the environment. (sorry for the horse metaphors)

A lot of scientists don't work for the EPA or Sierra Club. You seem to be implying that the EPA or Sierra Club has a conflict of interest, but I don't understand what interest it would serve either the EPA or the Sierra Club to push light bulbs that are less efficient or that pollute the environment more since that would go against their interests.

Nope. The evidence suggests if 50% of the electricity during the lifetime of the bulb; as rated by the manufacturer, is derived from coal, under ideal conditions, there's a marginal offset in the release of mercury into the environment.

Averages are only useful to a point. Most homes don't actually have 1.8 kids, that would get messy

In this case, averages are very useful since most of the United States gets more than 50% of electricity from burning fossil fuels. In addition, there are other pollutants that are released by burning fossil fuels, not just mercury. And of course, nuclear power has its own waste products as well. All of which would be reduced by using CFL's instead of incandescents.

-Bri

 

[Earthborn]

In case you are wondering why CFLs instead of LEDs, take a look at the performance chart below. Which would you choose?

I have no idea how to read that chart, or what you think it proves, but I do know that I replaced all my 11 watt CFL bulbs with 6 watt LED bulbs, and I am never going back.

 

[Furcifer]

Of course, 99% of them last more than 3 years, and some of those that don't are recycled. So they result in a net reduction in mercury.

Only if you consider the heat generated as waste. For a city like New York CFL's end up putting more mercury into the environment.

Are you saying that it's never been proven that CFL's have less mercury in them than they did 20 years ago?

No I'm saying people aren't necessarily buying CFL's that have less mercury than they did 20 years ago.

I couldn't find any information about how much mercury was in CFL bulbs when they were introduced but by 2007 CFL's had around 4 to 5 mg of mercury. In 2007, Wal-Mart announced that it was reducing the amount of mercury in the CFL's they sell to under 2 mg. There are now CFL's that have only 0.8 mg of mercury.

Which says nothing about the CFL's in homes.

That's provably false, since most of the arguments in favor of the heat claim are from a research paper entitled To Switch, or Not to Switch: A Critical Analysis of Canada's Ban on Incandescent Light Bulbs by M. Ivanco, B.W. Karney, and K.J. Waher. The paper specifically pertains to Canadian climate and cleaner sources of electricity that are prevalent in Canada. Nonetheless, there is plenty of criticism of the paper to be found on the Internet.

It's paywalled so it proves nothing. It's too bad because I'd be interested in reading it.

Meanwhile, plenty of scientists have spoken about the topic of whether or not it would be better to heat a house with incandescent bulbs. Here's one example:

Some people have translated this into the advice that incandescent light bulbs are good in winter because they supplement the heat to your home, making up for the additional energy they draw. I asked James Wang, Ph.D., a climate scientist at Environmental Defense, to calculate whether this was indeed true. His answer was no.​

He calculated whether this was true and his answer was "no"? I did an undergrad with a minor and math and never got the answer "no"

I'd love to see his calculation and what it's based on because it makes no sense. I've taken an Energy Management course in college and every single energy audit I've ever done takes into account the heat generated from incandescent lights (and fluorescent) to determine the HVAC load.

The problem is that even if there are more cold days than hot days, that doesn't mean that incandescents would necessarily be more efficient.

Yes it does.

Incandescents are no more more efficient at heating than a space heater, and in fact may be less so since bulbs are usually up near the ceiling so they're not going to heat very well at floor-level.

That's why they invented slippers

Light bulbs also don't have thermostats to turn them off when the room has reached the desired temperature.

Of course not, the HVAC does.

Having a very efficient light that uses less electricity and a space heater with a thermostat may be more efficient even in cold weather and incandescents are definitely less efficient in warm weather.

That's irrelevant, the heat from the incandescent still offsets the load to the spaceheater.

A lot of scientists don't work for the EPA or Sierra Club. You seem to be implying that the EPA or Sierra Club has a conflict of interest, but I don't understand what interest it would serve either the EPA or the Sierra Club to push light bulbs that are less efficient or that pollute the environment more since that would go against their interests.

Sometimes when people get a notion in their head they just won't let it go.

In this case, averages are very useful since most of the United States gets more than 50% of electricity from burning fossil fuels. In addition, there are other pollutants that are released by burning fossil fuels, not just mercury. And of course, nuclear power has its own waste products as well. All of which would be reduced by using CFL's instead of incandescents.
-Bri

I'd prefer a scientific study showing mercury levels before and after to these grandios claims. I'm a sucker for empirical evidence.

 

[Bri]

Only if you consider the heat generated as waste. For a city like New York CFL's end up putting more mercury into the environment.

Can you cite some evidence please? The only research I've heard of was in reference to Canada where (1) it's colder for longer than it is in New York, and (2) cleaner sources of electricity are more prevalent. And even that research is disputed.

Still, even if we assume that what you say is true about New York, that does not necessarily hold for the majority of Americans who don't live in New York.

No I'm saying people aren't necessarily buying CFL's that have less mercury than they did 20 years ago.

A smart person once said that "most people are buying them at WalMart or the Dollar Store and I don't know what they're packing." In 2007 Wal-Mart made the decision to only sell CFL's that contain under 2 mg of mercury, and it's unlikely that any CFL was available 20 years ago with less than 4 or 5 mg of mercury (and I suspect that they contained more because there are references that indicate that the 4-5 mg was a 20% decrease over previously available CFL's). That seems to be pretty good evidence that CFL's currently contain less mercury than they did 20 years ago.

He calculated whether this was true and his answer was "no"? I did an undergrad with a minor and math and never got the answer "no"

Did you read the article? He explains what his answer is based on.

Yes it does.

The same number of watts produces the same amount of heat no matter what combination of light source and space heater you use, so I'm not sure how you are determining that the CFL + space heater would necessarily be less efficient at keeping you warm than incandescent bulbs. Due to the fact that a space heater directs the heat at you rather than near the ceiling/attic, there wouldn't need to be as much heat overall to keep you warm. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

Sometimes when people get a notion in their head they just won't let it go.

Sometimes, but in this case the notion is supported by the evidence and it would be against the stated goals of both groups to push for bulbs that are less efficient or produce more pollution. The EPA study is still considered the most valid evidence by most experts.

I'd prefer a scientific study showing mercury levels before and after to these grandios claims. I'm a sucker for empirical evidence.

It would be nice, but I suspect it would be very difficult if not impossible to design such a study that would eliminate all other factors.

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

Still, even if we assume that what you say is true about New York, that does not necessarily hold for the majority of Americans who don't live in New York.

True. I suppose I could figure out the heating degree days for other highly populated areas of the United States and then determine just how much heat is actually waste and how much isn't, but then I'd be doing the EPA's job. Why should anyone have to do this, that's the question. The more skeptical of us are inclined to believe it's because they got the answer they wanted and stopped.

A smart person once said that "most people are buying them at WalMart or the Dollar Store and I don't know what they're packing." In 2007 Wal-Mart made the decision to only sell CFL's that contain under 2 mg of mercury, and it's unlikely that any CFL was available 20 years ago with less than 4 or 5 mg of mercury (and I suspect that they contained more because there are references that indicate that the 4-5 mg was a 20% decrease over previously available CFL's). That seems to be pretty good evidence that CFL's currently contain less mercury than they did 20 years ago.

I've seen quite a few in homes and they're coming from the dollar store. Not surprisingly I can't find information on how much Hg is in the dollar store bulbs, or how many they sell each year.

I don't disagree with you here, I just don't see any evidence to support the claim.

Did you read the article? He explains what his answer is based on.

What article?

The same number of watts produces the same amount of heat no matter what combination of light source and space heater you use, so I'm not sure how you are determining that the CFL + space heater would necessarily be less efficient at keeping you warm than incandescent bulbs. Due to the fact that a space heater directs the heat at you rather than near the ceiling/attic, there wouldn't need to be as much heat overall to keep you warm. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

I don't recall using "efficiency" once in any one of my posts so I don't know what you're talking about here.

If the bulb is on it's producing heat that the HVAC doesn't have to. It doesn't matter where it is in the room because the heat is distributed by convection not radiation.
Likewise in the Summer if the light is on it's producing heat the HVAC has to remove.

Sometimes, but in this case the notion is supported by the evidence and it would be against the stated goals of both groups to push for bulbs that are less efficient or produce more pollution. The EPA study is still considered the most valid evidence by most experts.

The EPA study is what it is, and there's nothing wrong with it. It just falls short of closing the gap between theory and reality.

It would be nice, but I suspect it would be very difficult if not impossible to design such a study that would eliminate all other factors.

-Bri

True, but you would hope the burden of proof so to speak would be higher for taking drastic legal measures like this ban.

 

[Bri]

The more skeptical of us are inclined to believe it's because they got the answer they wanted and stopped.

I think it more likely that they looked at the variables that were most relevant.

What article?

The one I meant to link to, but apparently only quoted a small bit of. Oops!

http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/10/09/heating_with_ics/

I don't recall using "efficiency" once in any one of my posts so I don't know what you're talking about here.

I did in the post to which you were responding:

The problem is that even if there are more cold days than hot days, that doesn't mean that incandescents would necessarily be more efficient.

Yes it does.

If the bulb is on it's producing heat that the HVAC doesn't have to. It doesn't matter where it is in the room because the heat is distributed by convection not radiation.

A light bulb at the ceiling doesn't feel as warm as a space heater directed on you. Which means that you would normally set your thermostat to a lower temperature with a space heater, thus using less electricity.

It should be pointed out that bulbs used for heat actually aren't restricted by the standards.

True, but you would hope the burden of proof so to speak would be higher for taking drastic legal measures like this ban.

The legislation is not a ban, and it's hardly a drastic measure either. It imposes efficiency standards on light bulbs, and is technology neutral. Some incandescent bulbs meet the first wave of requirements, but likely wouldn't meet the second wave unless some research is done to improve them. However, most manufacturers see LED's as a more promising technology and aren't putting a lot of resources into incandescent research.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

....plenty of scientists have spoken about the topic of whether or not it would be better to heat a house with incandescent bulbs. Here's one example:

Some people have translated this into the advice that incandescent light bulbs are good in winter because they supplement the heat to your home, making up for the additional energy they draw. I asked James Wang, Ph.D., a climate scientist at Environmental Defense, to calculate whether this was indeed true. His answer was no.​

....

The bolded part says it all. Paid shills, aren't they.

 

[Furcifer]

I think it more likely that they looked at the variables that were most relevant.

I think it was an afterthought and a generalization to justify the dispersion of Hg. YMMV.

The one I meant to link to, but apparently only quoted a small bit of. Oops!
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/10/09/heating_with_ics/

Ahh, now I see what you were getting at. I'm not sure the losses through a HVAC system warrant extended periods of use in order to compensate for the fractional increases from a lightbulb. But then again we're probably talking about a second or two to compensate.
In any event it isn't waste heat like the EPA study suggests. Less efficient, maybe, waste not really.

A light bulb at the ceiling doesn't feel as warm as a space heater directed on you. Which means that you would normally set your HVAC thermostat to a lower temperature with a space heater, thus using less electricity.

Ahh, again now I see what you're saying. I thought you meant baseboard heaters when you were saying space heater.
That's true but I don't know anyone who heats with space heaters, unless their furnace is broke. I imagine there are places in the US where they "get by" with them but not many.

It's not a ban, and it's hardly a drastic measure either.

Semantics. It's drastic enough to shutdown an industry that's been around for over a century and ship some 20000 jobs overseas. It's government meddling in the freemarket.

It imposes efficiency standards on light bulbs, and is technology neutral.

Which is great but misses the mark considerably. As the mitigated disaster that it is it seriously hurts legitimate efforts to improve efficiency in the future.

 

[mhaze]

I think it more likely that ......


A light bulb at the ceiling doesn't feel as warm as a space heater directed on you. Which means that you would normally set your thermostat to a lower temperature with a space heater, .....
-Bri

feel?

now you off swimming with wachos. heating is about injecting btus into an area.

 

[Bri]

feel?

now you off swimming with wachos. heating is about injecting btus into an area.

Are you suggesting that a heat source across the room feels the same as an identical heat source right next to you?

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

I'm suggesting that my ASHRAE reference books explain quite clearly how to calculate problems of this sort, and that having done so, I have no use for your laughable "expert references", or your opinions about your feelings on what feels one way or another.

This is called "engineering".

 

[Bri]

Ahh, again now I see what you're saying. I thought you meant baseboard heaters when you were saying space heater.
That's true but I don't know anyone who heats with space heaters, unless their furnace is broke. I imagine there are places in the US where they "get by" with them but not many.

The only advantage I can see to using light bulbs as supplementary heaters is because you can turn them on when you're in the room and therefore turn down your thermostat, in other words heat only one room of your house at a time. Otherwise, how does an incandescent bulb help you heat a whole house any more than a CFL, if you assume that the main HVAC will take up whatever watts aren't being converted into heat by the bulb? Both would require the same energy overall to heat the house the same amount.

Which is great but misses the mark considerably. As the mitigated disaster that it is it seriously hurts legitimate efforts to improve efficiency in the future.

It seems to have been a resounding success so far, resulting in bulbs that produce far more light per watt than incandescent bulbs.

-Bri