Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[Bri]

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".

No idea what your point is, but that's not unusual. I'm sure you have a valid point in maze-world where Al Gore was president when the liberal light bulb bill was signed into law.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by 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".

No idea what your point is, but that's not unusual. I'm sure you have a valid point in maze-world where Al Gore was president when the liberal light bulb bill was signed into law.

-Bri

Q.E.D.

 

[Furcifer]

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

-Bri

I still maintain the only success is delaying the inevitable rise of LED's and laying a clear framework for what not to do.

 

[Bri]

Q.E.D.

Reposting two prior posts and adding "Q.E.D." to the end only advances the discussion in mhaze-world.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I still maintain the only success is delaying the inevitable rise of LED's and laying a clear framework for what not to do.

We'll have to disagree on this point. I believe the legislation is largely responsible for hastening the rise of LED's.

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

We'll have to disagree on this point. I believe the legislation is largely responsible for hastening the rise of LED's.

-Bri

I don't see how someone buying an expensive CFL, that is supposed to last for more than 3 years, helps LED sales.

 

[Bri]

I don't see how someone buying an expensive CFL, that is supposed to last for more than 3 years, helps LED sales.

I don't think either CFL's or LED's would be prevalent now had it not been for the legislation. LED bulb development has been pushed by shortcomings in CFL's, including the mercury content.

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

I don't think either CFL's or LED's would be prevalent now had it not been for the legislation. LED bulb development has been pushed by shortcomings in CFL's, including the mercury content.

-Bri

I do. At the end of the day they save money and that's what motivates people to buy a product. Most businesses have been switching to more cost effective lighting solutions for years. Whether it's standard fluorescent lights, high output fluorescent lights, metal halide or sodium lights these have been used commercially for as long as they've been available.
Incandescent use and the need for a ban is about a few hold outs who prefer them for whatever reasons and the very poor who simply can't afford to put out more than .25 cents for a bulb.
The ban affects a very small percentage of users and an even smaller percentage of electricity usage for lighting.

eta: there's probably a small percentage of the population that's ignorant of technology that could be included in the above, but it's small, like shack in the woods small.

 

[Bri]

I do. At the end of the day they save money and that's what motivates people to buy a product. Most businesses have been switching to more cost effective lighting solutions for years. Whether it's standard fluorescent lights, high output fluorescent lights, metal halide or sodium lights these have been used commercially for as long as they've been available.

We may have to agree to disagree on that point then. Most businesses use flourescent tube lights, but not CFL's or LED's. Major improvements in CFL and LED technology didn't come about until recently, and in my opinion it's a direct result of the legislation.

Incandescent use and the need for a ban is about a few hold outs who prefer them for whatever reasons and the very poor who simply can't afford to put out more than .25 cents for a bulb.
The ban affects a very small percentage of users and an even smaller percentage of electricity usage for lighting.

That's the case now, because of the legislation. Before the legislation, incandescent bulbs were used exclusively by the vast majority of people in this country. Which is why I say that the legislation was a resounding success.

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

We may have to agree to disagree on that point then. Most businesses use flourescent tube lights, but not CFL's or LED's. Major improvements in CFL and LED technology didn't come about until recently, and in my opinion it's a direct result of the legislation.

Most likely because you aren't familiar with the LED industry. The improvements in technology that make them feasible have nothing to do with the ban. CREE's die was introduced in 2003.

That's the case now, because of the legislation. Before the legislation, incandescent bulbs were used exclusively by the vast majority of people in this country. Which is why I say that the legislation was a resounding success.

-Bri

Correlation isn't causality.

 

[Bri]

Most likely because you aren't familiar with the LED industry. The improvements in technology that make them feasible have nothing to do with the ban. CREE's die was introduced in 2003.

I believe that recent improvements in LED's which make them practical for use as light bulbs are probably due to the standards. That is not to say that those improvements definitely wouldn't have been made eventually, but probably not as quickly.

Correlation isn't causality.

Nor does correlation imply a lack of causality. We can only guess what would have happened without the legislation in question. It is my opinion that there is a causal relationship between the legislation and the increased prevalence of efficient light bulbs today compared to 5 years ago when the legislation was introduced.

There are plenty of news stories about the reaction from manufacturers to the lack of funding for enforcement of the legislation like this one that support my view that the legislation has in fact hastened the development and manufacture of both CFL and LED bulbs:

Light bulb makers on Friday took a dim view of the restrictions in the omnibus spending bill. The nation’s biggest bulb makers have been gearing up to comply with the regulations, coming up with new types of incandescent bulbs, as well as compact fluorescent and LED bulbs.

“American manufacturers have invested millions of dollars in transitioning to the standards,” said Joseph Higbee, communications director for the National Electrical Manufacturers Association. “A delay in enforcement would undermine those investments and cause regulatory uncertainty.”​

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

I believe that recent improvements in LED's which make them practical for use as light bulbs are probably due to the standards. That is not to say that those improvements definitely wouldn't have been made eventually, but probably not as quickly.

That's fine, but if I said the sales of Play Stations helped the X-Box, or the sales of Blue Ray helped HDVD's you'd look at me funny.

Nor does correlation imply a lack of causality. We can only guess what would have happened without the legislation in question. It is my opinion that there is a causal relationship between the legislation and the increased prevalence of efficient light bulbs today compared to 5 years ago when the legislation was introduced.

No, you're implying much more than that. You're saying the sales of CFL's, which are the inferior product in direct competition of LED's, helped LED sales and development.
Plus attributing the market expansion in 2007-2008 to the ban is tenuous at best. The article I cited earlier in this thread clearly indicates the exposure, or free advertising, was clearly a factor. That's causality.

 

[Bri]

That's fine, but if I said the sales of Play Stations helped the X-Box, or the sales of Blue Ray helped HDVD's you'd look at me funny.

Except that's not my argument. It's that the legislation helped both CFL and LED bulbs.

I also said that some of the improvements in LED technology were the result of trying to overcome some of the shortcomings of CFL technology. To use your analogy, it would be similar to saying that because of the competition from Sony, the X-Box was a better product than it would have been otherwise.

Plus attributing the market expansion in 2007-2008 to the ban is tenuous at best. The article I cited earlier in this thread clearly indicates the exposure, or free advertising, was clearly a factor. That's causality.

If you're referring to exposure due to the legislation, then that would support my position, not yours. If you're talking about some other type of "free advertising" you'll have to clarify.

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

Except that's not my argument. It's that the legislation helped both CFL and LED bulbs.

How exactly?

I also said that some of the improvements in LED technology were the result of trying to overcome some of the shortcomings of CFL technology. To use your analogy, it would be similar to saying that because of the competition from Sony, the X-Box was a better product than it would have been otherwise.

Not really, the advantages were inherent in the product well before the ban was an idea. Since 2003 the improvements have essentially been incremental improvements in efficiency.

If you're referring to exposure due to the legislation, then that would support my position, not yours. If you're talking about some other type of "free advertising" you'll have to clarify.

-Bri

Nonsense. You've got your causality mixed up. There's a direct correlation between media exposure and sales. The legislation created exposure, but the media reporting caused sales.

As it so happened CFL's were better poised to take advantage of the media attention, and resulting sales, than LED's. That's not to say both didn't benefit from it, but CFL's were a more mature technology. LED's are a better product, and if it happened today I doubt if this flash in the pan that is CFL's would ever happen.

 

[Bri]

How exactly?

According to light bulb manufacturers, when the legislation went into effect, they started retrofitting their facilities to produce CFL and LED bulbs and began the process of stopping production of incandescent bulbs which wouldn't meet the standards.

Nonsense. You've got your causality mixed up. There's a direct correlation between media exposure and sales. The legislation created exposure, but the media reporting caused sales.

The media exposure you mention was caused in large part by the legislation. Do a search -- almost all of the hits you find concern the legislation. Before the legislation there was far less media exposure concerning light bulb efficiency.

That's not to say both didn't benefit from it, but CFL's were a more mature technology. LED's are a better product, and if it happened today I doubt if this flash in the pan that is CFL's would ever happen.

I agree with that.

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

According to light bulb manufacturers, when the legislation went into effect, they started retrofitting their facilities to produce CFL and LED bulbs and began the process of stopping production of incandescent bulbs which wouldn't meet the standards.

That would qualify for the MDC, the ban wasn't to go into effect until 2012
I believe you're attributing way too much to the legislation and not enough to the power of advertising and penny pinching.

The media exposure you mention was caused in large part by the legislation. Do a search -- almost all of the hits you find concern the legislation. Before the legislation there was far less media exposure concerning light bulb efficiency.

Absolutely, the legislation caused exposure, but the exposure caused the increase in sales. I think that's an important distinction.

 

[Bri]

That would qualify for the MDC, the ban wasn't to go into effect until 2012

MDC? By "went into effect" I meant when the legislation was signed into law and they knew that by 2012 the standards would have to be met.

I believe you're attributing way too much to the legislation and not enough to the power of advertising and penny pinching.

How much do you believe I'm attributing to the legislation? I just said it helped and that I doubt the research, manufacture, and sale of efficient bulbs would be where they are today without the standards.

Absolutely, the legislation caused exposure, but the exposure caused the increase in sales. I think that's an important distinction.

The legislation caused exposure which caused an increase in sales. I don't see much of a distinction between that and what I've been saying all along, but I'm glad that we agree.

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

MDC? By "went into effect" I meant when the legislation was signed into law and they knew that by 2012 the standards would have to be met.

Million Dollar Challenge.

Yours would be a unique and not commonly held definition of "went in to effect".

How much do you believe I'm attributing to the legislation? I just said it helped and that I doubt the research, manufacture, and sale of efficient bulbs would be where they are today without the standards.

As I said, the net result may have been to help LED sales, but ultimately a dollar spent on CFL's is a dollar wasted that could have went to LEDs.

The legislation caused exposure which caused an increase in sales. I don't see much of a distinction between that and what I've been saying all along, but I'm glad that we agree.

-Bri

The important distinction is that an aggressive ad campaign could have accomplished more than some fools in Washington trying to manipulate the market did.
Not only is it money wasted, the end result seems to have left a sour taste in voters mouths.

 

[Furcifer]

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.

edit: not quite. I think the LED's I have put out about 170 lumens/watt not 300. I think 300 is the theoretical limit, but I'm not sure. I'm talking a bit off the cuff right now. Sorry. Sufficed to say LED's are considerably more efficient.

 

[Bri]

Million Dollar Challenge.

Yours would be a unique and not commonly held definition of "went in to effect".

I misspoke. I meant signed into law, as I said. Shall we move on?

As I said, the net result may have been to help LED sales, but ultimately a dollar spent on CFL's is a dollar wasted that could have went to LEDs.

Most of the dollars would probably have been spent on incandescents, which were the most common bulb at the time as most manufacturers began to phase out production of incandescents and retrofit their factories to produce CFL and LED bulbs because of the legislation.

The important distinction is that an aggressive ad campaign could have accomplished more than some fools in Washington trying to manipulate the market did.
Not only is it money wasted, the end result seems to have left a sour taste in voters mouths.

As I said, the legislation seems to have accomplished its goal just fine.

-Bri