Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[mhaze]

60w incandescent, Lowes, moved to endcap, less than 3.00 for box of 18.

 

[mhaze]

....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......

If you recall, the heavy push, and the ad campaigns, were government funded, ran from about 2007-2011, and pretty much strictly pushed CFL. That's what all the pictures in the adds were of. They are still up on billboards, airports and so forth.

I can not think of a single government sponsored add which shows an LED bulb.

And it's not just me that's noticed this.

http://www.merrittnews.net/article/...-governments-cfl-bulb-obsession-doesnt-add-up

Weird, really.

 

[Furcifer]

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

Sorry but it's a little more than that. There's a HUGE difference from the manufacturers dropping the incandescent bulb and turning their efforts towards CFL's and say Wal Mart capitalizing on the free advertising the legislation generated to tout some "green initiative" and sell a bunch of light bulbs that cost ten or twenty times as much as normal.
And I wouldn't be surprised if someone at Wal Mart wasn't saying "Hey we can push these CFL's and then when the LED's come into their own we'll sell a bunch of them. After that the home lighting market will pretty much shrivel up because LED's are legacy bulbs that people will pass from generation to generation"

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.

Actually no, with the relative cost of CFL's in 2007 I believe most of the dollars were spent on CFL's. I'd have to dig up the figures again to be sure though.

 

[This is The End]

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

Hilighting mine.

So it's not a ban because a near impossible research breakthrough might happen.

Don't make me find the post 5 pages back that explains why exactly the legislation is a ban.

 

[Bri]

Hilighting mine.

So it's not a ban because a near impossible research breakthrough might happen.

Don't make me find the post 5 pages back that explains why exactly the legislation is a ban.

Efficiency standards for light bulbs ban inefficient light bulbs the same way that efficiency standards for cars ban inefficient cars, if that's what you mean. But, no it's not a ban on incandescent bulbs. In fact, there are compliant incandescent bulbs available now. And many types of incandescent bulbs are exempt from the standards.

There is a second phase to the legislation that would go into effect later and would increase the standards further. It's questionable whether incandescent bulbs will be developed that meet those standards, but again many types of incandescent bulbs are exempt so, no, it's not a ban on incandescent bulbs.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Sorry but it's a little more than that. There's a HUGE difference from the manufacturers dropping the incandescent bulb and turning their efforts towards CFL's and say Wal Mart capitalizing on the free advertising the legislation generated to tout some "green initiative" and sell a bunch of light bulbs that cost ten or twenty times as much as normal.

I said that the legislation helped speed up the development and manufacture of both CFL and LED bulbs. You asked, "How exactly?" I cited sources with quotes from manufacturers saying that they began to retrofit factories to manufacture CFL and LED bulbs and began phasing out the manufacture of incandescent bulbs because of the legislation. I'm not sure what further evidence would satisfy you.

-Bri

 

[Roger Ramjets]

For WHAT?

The question was "Why consider CLFs now?", not "What applications are they best suited for?". At the time when that chart was created (2009) and different technologies were were being considered for improving domestic lighting efficiency, CFLs were the clear winner. LEDs are getting better now, but they still have a way to go before they can beat CFLs for general use.

For outdoor lighting, always the LED. Any flourescent degrades in lumen output when it's cold, and it's coldest at night, when you want .... duhh....LIGHT.

I use CFLs for outside lighting and low light output hasn't been a problem for me, but perhaps it just doesn't get cold enough here (-2.5ºC in winter).

Please note that I am not saying that LEDs are not better for certain applications, just that even though they are now managing to match CFLs in efficiency, they still cannot compete on cost. It's been hard enough getting people to switch to more efficient lighting as it is, without trying to convince them to pay 5000% more per bulb. At this time LEDs are simply too expensive.

Thanks, that was highly useful. Not in helping us make not so difficult purchasing decisions, but in understanding belief driven dogmatic thought processes and how lying is used for propaganda and population control.

I present data showing the measured performance of light bulbs available to consumers (which might help them to make better purchasing decisions) and you call it 'dogmatic', 'lying', 'propaganda' and 'population control'.

That you prefer personal anecdote and advocacy over scientific testing and extensive product surveys, shows that you are not interested in giving consumers accurate information that would help them to make rational purchasing decisions. Why do you hate free markets?

In the midst of which you accuse your "opposition" of being Luddites. Which is not only a lie, but shows a misunderstanding of what Luddites were.

Luddite: n. One who opposes technical or technological change.

Please note that my comment was not directed at you, but at those who are constantly bringing up spurious arguments against CFLs/LEDs and other new technologies, and will only give up their incandescent light bulb when it is pried from their cold dead hands.

But it's all fallen apart, so why keep beating a dead horse?

On the contrary, it has achieved it's intended purpose - which was to spur the development of more efficient lighting technologies.

So it's not a ban because a near impossible research breakthrough might happen.

There is no 'ban' on incandescent light bulbs! Only an (unenforceable) ban on waste. Even this would not have been necessary if the true cost of power generation was built into the price.

 

[This is The End]

Efficiency standards for light bulbs ban inefficient light bulbs the same way that efficiency standards for cars ban inefficient cars, if that's what you mean. But, no it's not a ban on incandescent bulbs. In fact, there are compliant incandescent bulbs available now. And many types of incandescent bulbs are exempt from the standards.

There is a second phase to the legislation that would go into effect later and would increase the standards further. It's questionable whether incandescent bulbs will be developed that meet those standards, but again many types of incandescent bulbs are exempt so, no, it's not a ban on incandescent bulbs.

-Bri

Yeah you've said all that several times in this thread. It reminds me of political spin.

It's a ban.

It covers the light bulbs that generations have grown up with and used:

If the ban was only on a small percentage of the type of light bulbs that everyone used since the invention of the light bulb, then it would be nitpicking to call it a ban.

Yet, since the ban is on a very large percentage of the type of light bulbs that everyone used since the invention of the light bulb, it would be nitpicking to not call it a ban.

Your car emissions standards analogy is not even close to the light bulb situation and I think you know it. It might be a bit closer if all gasoline cars that get under 50mpg were banned, and it just happened to help sell electric cars. Actually to be a fair analogy to the light bulb situation it would probably have to be closer to "all cars that get under 80mpg" or so would be banned.

 

[This is The End]

There is no 'ban' on incandescent light bulbs! Only an (unenforceable) ban on waste. Even this would not have been necessary if the true cost of power generation was built into the price.

Unenforceable is right. Probably the only valid argument that it isn't a ban is that it has no legs. Which reminds me of why this discussion is quote pointless:

Wow, nearly 100 posts and 1000 views in 24 hours. A hot issue no matter which way you slice it.

I would like to make an important note. You will still be able to buy the inefficient bulbs for many, many years to come (if not indefinitely).

Method 1: From online places, like eBay. The law covers the manufacture and the import, not the sale of 'old stock'. Even after sellers run out of old stock, there is a very good chance that sellers will be able to "magically" get more "old stock".

(Those familiar with the Laser importing from an old thread in the Science forum may know how. Some lasers (over a certain wattage I believe) are legal to own, but not legal to buy or import into the US. So the seller in China just says that if your package happens to get picked up by customs, then they guarantee to send you another one until one gets through*. From reading laser forums, they are almost never grabbed by customs.) (Obviously a case of light bulbs is quite bulkier than a laser, but customs seems to be lacking either way.)

*Note: I am saying that this is one of the methods that US eBay sellers may use to get more "old stock". Not that average users will do this to get bulbs directly. Though, as seen in the laser thread, it does happen.

Method 2: Aside from Method 1 (online sources, which I believe will be the main reason the old bulbs will still be available), the inefficient bulbs will still be legal to manufacture and sell in stores in the US if they just add "For Heat Use Only" or "For Outdoor Use Only" to the package. What you then do with the bulb when you get home is up to you.

 

[mhaze]

Yeah you've said all that several times in this thread. It reminds me of political spin.

It's a ban.....

It's been pointed out to Bri in previous threads that his assertions only refer to the preliminary phase of the implementation of the ban, the 2012 step. And that when the stricter regs go into effect a few years later, it does ban all of the incandescent varieties.

Since he knows this, he's lying in what he says now.

The question was "Why consider CLFs now?", not "What applications are they best suited for?". At the time when that chart was created (2009) and different technologies were were being considered for improving domestic lighting efficiency, CFLs were the clear winner. LEDs are getting better now, but they still have a way to go before they can beat CFLs for general use.

I use CFLs for outside lighting and low light output hasn't been a problem for me, but perhaps it just doesn't get cold enough here (-2.5ºC in winter).

Please note that I am not saying that LEDs are not better for certain applications, just that even though they are now managing to match CFLs in efficiency, they still cannot compete on cost. It's been hard enough getting people to switch to more efficient lighting as it is, without trying to convince them to pay 5000% more per bulb. At this time LEDs are simply too expensive.

I present data showing the measured performance of light bulbs available to consumers (which might help them to make better purchasing decisions) and you call it 'dogmatic', 'lying', 'propaganda' and 'population control'.

That you prefer personal anecdote and advocacy over scientific testing and extensive product surveys, shows that you are not interested in giving consumers accurate information that would help them to make rational purchasing decisions. Why do you hate free markets? ......

Little of what you've said here is objectively true, and I'll explain why.

For outdoors application, there have been alternative technologies for decades. You've "lied by omission" by neglecting this to make an "either or " comparison. Secondly, you've criticized me for personal anecdote, then proceeded to use one yourself.

FACT: CFL lumen output are lowest when it's coldest.
FACT: CFL output degrades linearly with time.

Combine these, and a CFL is just about the worst thing to put in an outdoors location.

Now to your chart. Of course if you'd referenced where it came from and what it was, that would have been helpful. Again, the chart does NOT show all of the light bulb choices available to the consumer. It only shows incandescent, CFL, and LED.

Just one example of a great technology not shown or advocated: Straight fluorescent bulbs < 24" in the T5 form factor. Not on the chart.

And yes I maintain that the government method used for pushing CFL (and it was CFL they pushed, check records of the advertising) was propaganda, lying, and population control. Individuals who jump on the band wagon of this scheme are thus doing the same thing.

As for the argument that "the ban has achieved it's purpose" by spurring new technologies, I have a good laugh at that. That's certainly why LEDs invaded the flashlight market, isn't it?

No......

 

[Bri]

Your car emissions standards analogy is not even close to the light bulb situation and I think you know it. It might be a bit closer if all gasoline cars that get under 50mpg were banned, and it just happened to help sell electric cars.

You mean like the proposed automobile standards mentioned in this article from the New York Times:

While the American carmakers, as well as their Asian rivals, once argued against even minimal increases in government fuel rules, they are acquiescing without protest to an increase to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, from the current 27 miles per gallon.​

I don't know what you're insinuating about the light bulb standards by "it just happened to help sell electric cars" but any standards will help to sell the most efficient technologies -- that's the whole point. So, yes, I guess the proposed automobile standards might help sell electric cars.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

It's been pointed out to Bri in previous threads that his assertions only refer to the preliminary phase of the implementation of the ban, the 2012 step. And that when the stricter regs go into effect a few years later, it does ban all of the incandescent varieties.

Since he knows this, he's lying in what he says now.

In mhaze-world, I didn't already acknowledge the stricter regs in the very post to which you refer, and some incandescent bulbs aren't exempt from the standards.

-Bri

 

[Blue Mountain]

I want to try another tack in arguing in favour of more efficient light bulbs. Making things more efficient on electricity means we don't have to ramp up electrical generation as the population grows. That means utilities don't have to build expensive plants: expensive in terms of cost (nuclear), the environment (coal) or land use (hydroelectric dams). In the long run that should mean your electricity bills won't rise as fast.

Will light bulbs by themselves do it? That I don't know.

 

[mhaze]

In mhaze-world, I didn't already acknowledge the stricter regs in the very post to which you refer, and some incandescent bulbs aren't exempt from the standards.

-Bri

Reminds me of the "ban on assault rifles" enacted during the Clinton era.

What suddenly got extreeeeemely popular?

"Assault rifles".

Let me guess.

"The legislation accomplished what it was intended to".

BWHAHAHAHA!

 

[mhaze]

I want to try another tack in arguing in favour of more efficient light bulbs. Making things more efficient on electricity means we don't have to ramp up electrical generation as the population grows. That means utilities don't have to build expensive plants: expensive in terms of cost (nuclear), the environment (coal) or land use (hydroelectric dams). In the long run that should mean your electricity bills won't rise as fast.....

Two words.

Jevons Paradox.

 

[Bri]

Reminds me of the "ban on assault rifles" enacted during the Clinton era.

What suddenly got extreeeeemely popular?

"Assault rifles".

Let me guess.

"The legislation accomplished what it was intended to".

BWHAHAHAHA!

If inefficient incandescent bulbs were becoming more popular, I would agree with you that the legislation was a failure. But in the world that most of us live in, the light bulb legislation seems to have accomplished what it was intended to.

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

I said that the legislation helped speed up the development and manufacture of both CFL and LED bulbs. You asked, "How exactly?" I cited sources with quotes from manufacturers saying that they began to retrofit factories to manufacture CFL and LED bulbs and began phasing out the manufacture of incandescent bulbs because of the legislation. I'm not sure what further evidence would satisfy you.

-Bri

I'm just pointing out the "chicken and the egg" we've got going here. You're pointing to the legislation as cause I'm pointing to exposure and WalMart as the cause. I don't think you get much retrofitting if you don't have the largest retailer in the US taking advantage of the situation to sell more light bulbs.

 

[Bri]

I'm just pointing out the "chicken and the egg" we've got going here. You're pointing to the legislation as cause I'm pointing to exposure and WalMart as the cause. I don't think you get much retrofitting if you don't have the largest retailer in the US taking advantage of the situation to sell more light bulbs.

I suspect that both the media exposure and WalMart's decisions to sell more efficient bulbs were also results of the legislation, at least in part. The industry itself certainly seems to point to the legislation as a major cause.

I don't think it can be argued that the legislation didn't help to speed up advancements in CFL and LED technology that make them viable alternatives to inefficient bulbs.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

I'm sure that decades hence, there will be some few reactionary Bulb Truthers hoarding their CFLs, and turning them on and gloating when nobody is watching.

Sort of like how decades after WWII ended, Japanese soldiers who didn't hear about the end of the war were being found in caves in the Pacific Islands, still ready to fight.

It's a bit smarter:

A) it's over
B) you lost

 

[Furcifer]

I don't think it can be argued that the legislation didn't help to speed up advancements in CFL and LED technology that make them viable alternatives to inefficient bulbs.

-Bri

I don't think you can argue that legislation didn't expand the market for both. My contention is that the timing of the legislation and the attempt to manipulate the market was more advantageous for CFL's and it came at the expense of LED's.