Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[tyr_13]

How stupid do you think people are?

Using you as an example?

 

[mhaze]

Really, if you're trying to make the argument that there are other factors that influence lighting choice than energy efficiency, you shouldn't have listed bulb life as one of the factors, particularly noting that energy-efficient bulbs tend to last longer than inefficient ones.

So...at this point the only argument you've made for inefficient bulbs is that they change color temperature when dimmed. You got anything else?

-Bri

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. I've simply got an area that was nicely designed with PAR30. I've stockpiled PAR30 incandescent since they went off store shelves due to the new laws. There's no desire on my part to change the lighting or it's current capabilities. Yes, they include various color temps, as well as local area heating. That's my choice.

Radical eco freaks question this behavior because I'm not with THEIR PROGRAM. Or your program, whatever. They ask me to explain what I've done, and they try to find ways I'm wrong, or stupid, or irrational. That's why it's pretty much correct to call such behavior eco fascist.

Even the language used reflects this and is prejudicial. You've got to use the phrase "inefficient bulb" which is pejorative, instead of the proper term, 90W incandescent PAR30 medium Edison base. That's ridiculous. As is the senseless moralizing and criticizing over consumer choice of light bulbs.

Simply stated, I don't have a problem. People that would criticize my behavior with light bulbs have a problem. They really need to get a life.

 

[Bri]

Sorry, but you are engaging in circuitous reasoning and presenting deceptive and misleading conclusions as reasonable. Here is what has been done.

1. Define a new category of bulb, "energy efficient incandescent bulbs" to exclude all traditional incandescent bulbs of these styles and reliabilities and performance that people are familiar with
2. Ban by law "incandescent bulbs" with exclusions for category #1 above.
3. Argue that everyone should be happy because they can all buy incandescent bulbs, although of the "energy efficient category".

How stupid do you think people are?

You really ought to address what I've actually written rather than listing arguments that you wish I had made.

So getting back to the discussion at hand as opposed to one you've apparently been having in your mind, what qualities of the old less-efficient incandescent bulbs aren't (currently) available in energy-efficient bulbs? So far you have mentioned color changes when dimmed.

So again, what other qualities of the less-efficient bulbs aren't available as a result of the new efficiency standards?

-Bri

 

[Ziggurat]

No, people are more used to them. There's a difference.

Yes, there is a difference, but your claim is wrong and my claim is right. There are people who prefer standard incandescents to the alternatives. Whether or not the reason they prefer them is because of familiarity (and in point of fact that isn't the only reason), the fact is that there are people who prefer them.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Indeed, the evil goes back way futher that that:

1. Define a new category of food, "safe for human consumption" to exclude all traditional foods with the tastes and textures that people are familiar with
2. Ban by law "foods" with exclusions for category #1 above.
3. Argue that everyone should be happy because they can all buy food, although of the "safe for human consumption" category

 

[Bri]

Even the language used reflects this and is prejudicial. You've got to use the phrase "inefficient bulb" which is pejorative, instead of the proper term, 90W incandescent PAR30 medium Edison base. That's ridiculous.

I'm using the term "inefficient" or "less-efficient" or "non-compliant" to distinguish those bulbs that don't fall within the new efficiency standards from those that do (i.e. those that produce at least the minimum required lumens per watt of energy used). The description "90W incandescent PAR30 medium Edison base" doesn't indicate whether or not it complies with the standards unless you also include the amount of light produced. "PAR30 medium Edison base bulbs" describes the shape and base of the bulb, and has nothing to do with efficiency. There are likely 90W incandescent PAR30 medium Edison base bulbs that fall within the new standards (if there aren't already, there will be at some point).

Simply stated, I don't have a problem. People that would criticize my behavior with light bulbs have a problem. They really need to get a life.

You complained about the new standards, indicating that you now have to stockpile non-compliant bulbs. Personally, I'm just trying to figure out your criteria so that you might be able to find compliant bulbs that meet those criteria. So far you seem less interested in finding bulbs that meet your criteria than in arguing that no bulb that complies with the new standards can possibly meet your criteria.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

It doesn't matter exactly why some people prefer incandescent bulbs, the fact is that they do.

Some people prefer having sex with children too. What's your point?

There is no need to ban such bulbs. It's stupid nanny-statism, for very small gains.

Obviously some would characterize the standards as a significant reduction in energy usage (up to 1.2 trillion kilowatt-hours over thirty years), a reduction in carbon emissions (by an estimated 594 million metric tons), and a cost savings for consumers and businesses ($35 billion) for very little if any sacrifice for the vast majority of consumers.

-Bri

 

[Ziggurat]

Some people prefer having sex with children too. What's your point?

Wow. Talk about poisoning the well.

It should make NO DIFFERENCE to you how I use the electricity that I buy. You can argue that the amount I buy has some relevance, but beyond that, you have no grounds for claiming that using electricity for incandescent lighting is any more harmful than any other use of electricity.

Obviously some would characterize the standards as a significant reduction in energy usage

But the ban does nothing to ensure that. People can still use as much energy as they want to. What limits people's consumption of electricity is price. It you want to lower usage, simply raise the price of electricity. That way people can still decide what they want to use electricity for. Dictating what they can use it for but doing nothing to address how much they use won't achieve what you want to achieve.

And if the switch is really as directly beneficial and painless to consumers as you claim, then they'll mostly switch on their own anyways.

 

[JoelKatz]

There's a reason I've pretty much given up typing in this thread, choosing instead to just marvel at the bizarre attachment some people seem to have to crappy light bulbs.

It's not about light bulbs, it's about freedom. Erosion has to start somewhere small and it eventually gets big if you don't pick some point to stop it.

 

[mhaze]

I'm using the term "inefficient" or "less-efficient" or "non-compliant" to distinguish those bulbs that don't fall within the new efficiency standards from those that do (i.e. those that produce at least the minimum required lumens per watt of energy used). The description "90W incandescent PAR30 medium Edison base" doesn't indicate whether or not it complies with the standards unless you also include the amount of light produced. "PAR30 medium Edison base bulbs" describes the shape and base of the bulb, and has nothing to do with efficiency. ....

First of all, traditional bulbs are well understood in terms of watts. And it simply isn't relevent whether it is compliant. It is you that think in those terms, not I. I simply provided the complete, correct technical description of the bulb. You know, like what you would give an electrician? Someone in the Real World? Or a lighting engineer? Or even an average homeowner. Those sorts of people.

.....You complained about the new standards, indicating that you now have to stockpile non-compliant bulbs. Personally, I'm just trying to figure out your criteria so that you might be able to find compliant bulbs that meet those criteria. So far you seem less interested in finding bulbs that meet your criteria than in arguing that no bulb that complies with the new standards can possibly meet your criteria.-Bri

Right, and that's what is so hilarious. You (and Joe) think you can "help". But your "help" involves a sort of moralizing about light bulbs based on some concepts of human values from a green perspective. These are essentially faith based concepts, and nobody disrespects you for being a true believer. However, people may disagree with you or not care one bit what you say.

And I really don't. Your "help" reminds me of people with a Bible coming up to "help" you with your lack of faith.

Oh, and by the way. It may have flown right over your head, but I did suggest you look up Jevons Paradox. Let me warn you first. This will be evidence contrary to your belief patterns. It is that the most likely result of the current trends in "efficient bulbs" will be far higher energy utilization in lighting.

Not less energy used, but more.

But then, no one ever said that fanatical eco-fascist concepts were not fundamentally unscientific and even outright stupid. Look up Jevons, and I'd be interested in if you agree, or not.

 

[mhaze]

It's not about light bulbs, it's about freedom. Erosion has to start somewhere small and it eventually gets big if you don't pick some point to stop it.

You are not with the program one bit dude. You need to learn how to correct your thinking. Then you get vodka ration at party meetings and I vote double ration comrade.

.... It you want to lower usage, simply raise the price of electricity.....

Well, these green types have repeated said they want to do this through various "carbon schemes", and in some countries have succeeded. But that's not enough by any means. That's why this discussion exists. People that agree with freedom didn't start it. People that want to control you started it, and this thread has some of them in it.

Just look how they are treating me. They ignored what I said about the many cases where I've got advanced and highly efficient LED lighting. They focus instead on the one room WHERE I'M DOING VERY EVIL THINGS. You see, apparently I'm not completely with the program, so lecturing in right behavior is required.

 

[Aepervius]

I am not so sure the Jevons paradox is valid here. We pretty much had already bulb light everywhere we wanted or needed, or neon in other places, even when NOT wanted (night light pollution). Lighting was already cheap enough in the west that no folk really spared on it. On the contrary most people never really looked at energy consumption of light. The very rare industrial environment I visited which spared on light, had other reason to do it (mostly difficulty to add new electrical pathway or cost of it).

The Jevons paradox works only if you have not already topped out in the usage, and there are some industry or social class which did not use the resource for that because of cost. For lightning I would hold this has been very likely untrue for decades.

ETA: the only maybe domain left are lightning city between 2h morning and 6-7h morning , some of the most poor city in rural zone cutting lightning.

 

[gumboot]

I need about 5-7 incandescents to last as long as a single CFL, and the price is cheaper for a CFL in that comparison.

CFLs must be cheap where you are. Here they cost as much as 8 or 9x an incandescent. And that's for the cheap crappy ones.

In all honesty I used CFLs before I knew about the energy efficiency because I find incandescents "harsh."

In what way do you find them "harsh"? I think most people would say the opposite (although CFLs are getting closer to 3200K).

 

[Kid Eager]

CFLs must be cheap where you are. Here they cost as much as 8 or 9x an incandescent. And that's for the cheap crappy ones.




In what way do you find them "harsh"? I think most people would say the opposite (although CFLs are getting closer to 3200K).

Depending on the room, I use different colour temp CFLs. In the lounge area, a warmer, lower colour temp light gives a bit of a cosy feel. Where I work with digital images and profiled printers, I go for a daylight colour temp CFL.

Using CFLs was a pragmatic decision to reduce our electricity bill. Instead of 40 or 60 watt globes, we use 11 or 14 watt ones.

 

[DC]

You are not with the program one bit dude. You need to learn how to correct your thinking. Then you get vodka ration at party meetings and I vote double ration comrade.

Well, these green types have repeated said they want to do this through various "carbon schemes", and in some countries have succeeded. But that's not enough by any means. That's why this discussion exists. People that agree with freedom didn't start it. People that want to control you started it, and this thread has some of them in it.

Just look how they are treating me. They ignored what I said about the many cases where I've got advanced and highly efficient LED lighting. They focus instead on the one room WHERE I'M DOING VERY EVIL THINGS. You see, apparently I'm not completely with the program, so lecturing in right behavior is required.

oh dear, what a clown you are. we especially made up the whole AGW science just to control you....
its all about taking your freedoms and has nothing to do with our impact on this planet.

 

[Limbero]

In Sweden, they banned production of incandescent bulbs a year ago or if it was two. I don't mind being earth friendly, but I'm pissed that they forced us to change before the alternative was good enough.

I just checked prices, and a standard incandescent costs 25 SEK (4-ish USD) and a standard CFL costs 150 SEK (24-ish USD). That means you have to wait six incandescent-bulb lifetimes to even break even, bulb-cost wise. I still live at home, so I'm not sure about the figures, but my dad says that the electricity bill has been clearly reduced since we switched (we started switching prior to the ban, I think it was three years ago), but that we only recently started breaking even.

Then there's the issue of quality. The CFLs you get in Sweden for that price take 1-5 seconds to light up at all and 1-5 minutes to light up fully. That means they work for dinner tables and living rooms, where you just want a lighter environment, but it isn't a life or death situation. However, they are pretty much useless for closets, storage sheds and such, where you want to go inside, turn on the lights, find what you need, and be on your way in less than 10 seconds. They also kind of suck for bed lighting, because when I turn on my lamp, I want to start reading right away. The only solution I've found for either of these is leaving the lights on most of or all of the time, but from my calculations, that's less energy efficient than using an incandescent bulb.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I would have liked it if CFLs that could replace all types of incandescents were commercially available before they banned the production of incandescent bulbs. Otherwise, I am all for a ban of production of something when there's an alternative with so many clear benefits.

 

[Visual Purple]

I'm very color-temperature sensitive; I spent more time than I'd like adjusting monitors and I very much notice the difference between standard incandescents and halogens. Also, I can often see 60 Hz flicker in my peripheral vision. I'm expecting to end up using a lot of appliance bulbs, and really wish things had gone Kestrel's way, and there had simply ended up being a high tax on inefficient bulbs. I'd pay it until I saw an efficient bulb I really liked.

So for those with some expertise in what's out there: I'm not an incandescent bulb fundamentalist. What can I get with a incandescent-like color profile (NOT standard halogen) and no discernible flicker? It could be cooler in temperature, too, so long as it isn't unbalanced toward the yellow too much. I'd pay a pretty high premium to help build a market for something like that. I hate what most of the current options do for skin tones.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So for those with some expertise in what's out there: I'm not an incandescent bulb fundamentalist. What can I get with a incandescent-like color profile (NOT standard halogen) and no discernible flicker?

The newer CFLs really are pretty good. And soon the next batch of efficient incandescents will hit the market, but eventually I think we'll get good LED technology.

So your sensitivity to color--is it worth burning the extra coal, or is it something you can live with? Most institutional lighting (large retail stores, offices, factories, warehouses, hospitals and doctors offices, etc.) has been fluorescent lighting for years. Do you just avoid all these places, or is it maybe just a relatively minor nuisance to you?

 

[ehcks]

Something really doesn't make sense to me. With nearly every other technology, everyone seems to be in a rush to get the newest thing.

But on lightbulbs, everyone wants to be slow about changing to a newer light that uses less power.

Why is this?

Obviously the second "everyone" is an exaggeration, and I just mean an oddly large number of very loud people.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

CFLs must be cheap where you are. Here they cost as much as 8 or 9x an incandescent. And that's for the cheap crappy ones.

Personally, I've only bought CFLs based on price. In larger quantity packs, they've been pretty cheap for a while--comparable to name-brand standard incandescent bulbs.

I have noticed that my older ones are slow to come to full brightness, but otherwise I haven't noticed any difference in light quality. And since buying my house about 4 years ago (and using CFLs everywhere except for one exterior flood light), I haven't had a single one burn out on me.

One thing I've been told is that CFLs are more sensitive to improper wiring. My very old little house has all new wiring up to code. However, at the last place I rented, I found CFLs were the only thing that lasted at all. I was going through incandescent bulbs like crazy. That's what first got me to try to buy the then much more expensive CFL bulbs as an experiment. I was happy with them.