Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[Roger Ramjets]

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 the T5 fluorescent tube fits into a standard ES lamp socket, right?

No.......

So instead of just plugging it in, the consumer has to install an expensive new fitting. T5's use very similar technology to CFLs, so I expect their performance would be similar (though perhaps not so good at low temperature) but that is beside the point. Along with a host of other lighting choices, they are not a simple plug-in replacement for incandescent lamps in the home, and that is the only reason they were not included (what nefarious scheme did you think was afoot?).

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.

I guess that just about anything the government encourages or promotes is propaganda, lying, and population control, right? Leave it up to The Market to decide, like with LED torches? That would great if the playing field was level and consumers were fully informed and capable of making rational choices. But we all know that won't happen...

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.

Nonsense. LEDs were not ready for the market anyway, so promoting them over CFLs would have been stupid. But the legislation is helping them gain acceptance and spurring their development. Maybe in 2 or 3 years time they will become competitive with CFLs, and consumers will switch to them. But that won't happen if people stick to incandescents!

 

[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.

I agree that the legislation expanded the market for both CFL's and LED's. But I think the reason LED's aren't as popular as CFL's has more to do with the fact that LED's were (and still are) extremely expensive compared to CFL's. I'm skeptical of your speculation that without the legislation LED's would be more popular now than they are currently.

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

Nonsense. LEDs were not ready for the market anyway, so promoting them over CFLs would have been stupid. But the legislation is helping them gain acceptance and spurring their development. Maybe in 2 or 3 years time they will become competitive with CFLs, and consumers will switch to them. But that won't happen if people stick to incandescents!

No, the question is why is the government bothering with a small segment of the home lighting market in the first place? I'll give you a hint: kissing babies. It's political posturing.
I really could care less about the bulbs, I'm more interested in why politicians are trying to manipulate people, and why people allow it.

 

[Furcifer]

I'm skeptical of your speculation that without the legislation LED's would be more popular now than they are currently.

-Bri

Careful, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that if the legislation wasn't proposed LED's wouldn't have to take back the market they've lost to CFL's.

What that means is right now there would probably be more people with incandescent lights trying to decide which to buy, instead of stuck with CFL's waiting for them to burn out and buy LED's.

 

[Bri]

Careful, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that if the legislation wasn't proposed LED's wouldn't have to take back the market they've lost to CFL's.

What that means is right now there would probably be more people with incandescent lights trying to decide which to buy, instead of stuck with CFL's waiting for them to burn out and buy LED's.

Maybe. More likely if there were no CFL's people would continue to use incandescent bulbs for several more years given the price of LED's, maybe many more years considering the possibility that the advancements that made LED's a viable alternative might not have been accomplished by now. I suspect it's better to have the CFL's instead of incandescent bulbs until LED's are truly competitive.

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

Maybe. More likely if there were no CFL's people would continue to use incandescent bulbs for several more years given the price of LED's, maybe many more years considering the possibility that the advancements that made LED's a viable alternative might not have been accomplished by now. I suspect it's better to have the CFL's instead of incandescent bulbs until LED's are truly ready for prime time.

-Bri

The only problem with that is CFL's are supposed to last for 10000 hours. If they do they may be in circulation longer than we'd like. I believe that will ultimately have a negative effect on the emerging LED market.

It's pretty neat IMO, the whole lighting industry is about to change drastically. In 10 years it won't look anything like what we've grown up with.

 

[mhaze]

The only problem with that is CFL's are supposed to last for 10000 hours. If they do they may be in circulation longer than we'd like. I believe that will ultimately have a negative effect on the emerging LED market.

It's pretty neat IMO, the whole lighting industry is about to change drastically. In 10 years it won't look anything like what we've grown up with.

Negative effect? Quite the reverse. The LED doesn't need 110v, only 6v, while the CFL needs a step up solid state device to run of house current.

What the future holds is LED capable of being run off low voltage circuits that don't even require an electrician or permit to install, for commercial applications, don't require wire inside conduit, and which don't require or benefit from the Edison base.

 

[mhaze]

And the T5 fluorescent tube fits into a standard ES lamp socket, right?

No.......

Nope. But they are far superior in reliability to CFL.

.....Maybe in 2 or 3 years time they will become competitive with CFLs, and consumers will switch to them. But that won't happen if people stick to incandescents!

Maybe in 2 or 3 years? Where ARE you?

Shelf space at Lowes and Home Depot is about equal today and for the last year for (A) CFL (B) LED.

That's all you need to know about what's competitive with what and when.

 

[Bri]

The only problem with that is CFL's are supposed to last for 10000 hours. If they do they may be in circulation longer than we'd like. I believe that will ultimately have a negative effect on the emerging LED market.

It's possible, but I'm still skeptical that the legislation will have a negative effect on the emerging LED market.

In order to support your conclusion, the imminent prominence of LED's would have to have been delayed longer with the legislation than without it. But there's no reason to assume that the whole scenario wouldn't have simply played itself out much as it already has, but slower. If that's the case, we would still have CFL's as an interim technology, but it would take even longer for LED's to eventually become viable.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that without the legislation, incandescent bulbs would remain popular until a few years after they have with the legislation, after which due to the lack of pesky CFL's, everyone would immediately switch to LED's several years earlier than we will with the legislation.

Even in this scenario, I'm not sure that the extended use of the incandescents wouldn't be worse than using CFL's as an interum technology earlier and LED's coming in a little later. The difference between incandescents and CFL's is pretty marked but the difference between CFL's and LED's not so much.

So I suspect that we're still better off with the legislation, even if you're right (and I suspect that you're not) that the dominance of LED bulbs has been postponed because of it.

It's pretty neat IMO, the whole lighting industry is about to change drastically. In 10 years it won't look anything like what we've grown up with.

I'm a little surprised we stuck with the old incandescent bulbs as long as we have!

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

I would like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas. To be more specific, a Merry Incandescent Christmas, or a Merry LED Christmas. Check it out. Go driving around, and yes, you'll see some incandescent Christmas strings of bulbs. And you'll see some LED Christmas strings.

Nowhere on this planet will you see CFL strings. Not in in the most dyed in the wool liberal town, not in the center of liberal propaganda. Nowhere is there a string of little red green yellow and white CFL bulbs on a Christmas Tree, either.

There. That proves it.

They no good.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Kestrel]

I would like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas. To be more specific, a Merry Incandescent Christmas, or a Merry LED Christmas. Check it out. Go driving around, and yes, you'll see some incandescent Christmas strings of bulbs. And you'll see some LED Christmas strings.

Nowhere on this planet will you see CFL strings. Not in in the most dyed in the wool liberal town, not in the center of liberal propaganda. Nowhere is there a string of little red green yellow and white CFL bulbs on a Christmas Tree, either.

There. That proves it.

They no good.

Merry Christmas!

Not quite.

My parents have a string of fluorescent christmas lights that glow in soft pastel colors. They were produced in the early 1950s.

Merry Christmas

 

[mhaze]

Not quite.

My parents have a string of fluorescent christmas lights that glow in soft pastel colors. They were produced in the early 1950s.

Merry Christmas

See? More evidence. Those are flourescent, not weird perverted squiggy worm bulbs. That just proves it more. Morer, to be precise.

Thanks for the additional confirmatory evidenticitas, and Merry Christmas to all!

 

[Furcifer]

The difference between incandescents and CFL's is pretty marked but the difference between CFL's and LED's not so much.

Well they're about twice as efficient, light up instantly, work better in the cold, can withstand considerably more impact and last about 10 times as long. I think that's marked.

So I suspect that we're still better off with the legislation, even if you're right (and I suspect that you're not) that the dominance of LED bulbs has been postponed because of it.

Time will tell I suppose. I'm fairly confident in my assessment; the only reason CFL's got this flash in the pan is because of advertising buzz created by the legislation. In the end the sheer awesomeness of LED's will prevail.

 

[Bri]

Well they're about twice as efficient, light up instantly, work better in the cold, can withstand considerably more impact and last about 10 times as long. I think that's marked.

I was specifically talking about the much larger difference in energy efficiency between incandescent and CFL's than between CFL's and LED's. The legislation was better from an energy usage standpoint even if it postponed LED prominence by a few years as long as it stopped incandescent usage a few years sooner.

Time will tell I suppose. I'm fairly confident in my assessment; the only reason CFL's got this flash in the pan is because of advertising buzz created by the legislation.

If that's the case and hastened the end of the incandescent bulb, then the legislation had a net positive effect.

In the end the sheer awesomeness of LED's will prevail.

I agree.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

...In the end the sheer awesomeness of LED's will prevail.

May I amend your brilliant statement.

In the end the sheer ridiculousness of noodle-bulb CFLs was overwhelmed by the sheer awesomeness of LEDs.

 

[Furcifer]

If that's the case and hastened the end of the incandescent bulb, then the legislation had a net positive effect.

That remains to be seen. If people replace CFL's with LED's and then just throw them in the garbage, which is a very real possibility, it goes from "net positive effect" to environmental catastrophe.

 

[Bri]

That remains to be seen. If people replace CFL's with LED's and then just throw them in the garbage, which is a very real possibility, it goes from "net positive effect" to environmental catastrophe.

Not necessarily. It depends how long they were used instead of incandescent bulbs before they were thrown away (assuming they are thrown away rather than recycled).

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

Not necessarily. It depends how long they were used instead of incandescent bulbs before they were thrown away (assuming they are thrown away rather than recycled).

-Bri

And where you live.

"Alaska, California, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont. In these states, switching to a CFL actually can cause a small net gain in atmospheric mercury emissions—up to about 1.2 mg."

Why wouldn't the EPA and the Sierra Club tell people about this if it's in their best interest? Shouldn't the people in those states have been told about the mercury and allowed to decide for themselves?

 

[Bri]

And where you live.

"Alaska, California, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont. In these states, switching to a CFL actually can cause a small net gain in atmospheric mercury emissions—up to about 1.2 mg."

Interesting article, thanks for posting it. I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions (for example, I think the average CFL nowadays has less than 5 mg of mercury), but it does appear to verify the EPA study.

Why wouldn't the EPA and the Sierra Club tell people about this if it's in their best interest? Shouldn't the people in those states have been told about the mercury and allowed to decide for themselves?

Besides the fact that it makes sense from a logistical standpoint for the efficiency standards to apply across the board, even in those states you listed, the small net gain in atmospheric mercury emissions might still be worth the energy savings and reduction in nuclear waste and other contaminants.

-Bri

 

[Christian Klippel]

If you use an LED bulb (or even a CFL), it results in less pollution than an equivalent incandescent.

Could you supply the evidence for that claim, please? Because so far i never came across that evidence.

And to make sure: I am not talking about just the energy it consumes during its lifetime, nor the mercury it contains. See, most of the CFL's are produced in China and are shipped from from there. Without any exception they all contain electronics, and also i have never seen a CFL that did not have a plastic base containing that electronics.

So, a PCB has to be produced which means the use of copper (of which most is etched away then), base material for the PCB which must contain chemicals that prevent it from burning as much as possible. Then you need the electronic parts produced and shipped around. Semiconductor production isn't known for being low on usage of energy and material. Then you need to get the plastic and bring it in shape. The glas of the CFL needs to be formed in a rather complex shape, and it has to be quite thick as well compared to a incadescent. Also you have to coat it from the inside so that the UV light, which the CFL produces, is converted into visible light.

All that stuff needs to be produced, assembled and shipped around. Compare that for a simple incadescent. Thin glas with no complex shape. No coating. Thin tungsten wire, a piece of thin metal for the socket, and a dab of cement.

Really, i love to see a comparison between the energy and material required for both of them, in detail that is.

Just because a CFL consumes less electricity than a incadescent is only one, very small side of the overall equation.

Oh, and LED lamps also require electronics, semiconductors and plastics.

So, care to share the study/comparison, which you seem to have, that can say for sure that overall CFL's pollute less?

Greetings,

Chris

ETA: Preferably it should also include the cost and impact of the required processing after it was used. Separating a incadescent is rather simple, because there are only a few materials used. The electronics used in CFL's will be a much bigger problem. You know, recycling looks good, sure, but as a matter of fact a lot of that collected electronics trash ends up in third world countries were people literally burn that stuff to seperate the metals from it. Surely not what most people have in mind when they think "No problem, it will get recycled". All these things must be considered, i think, to get any meaningful and valid comparison.