Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[DC]

No, DC. You've just linked to an industrial bulb, of a type that is not banned. That's one nasty, headachy, harsh, don't stare at it bulb you've linked to.

No one is saying that all bulbs are banned.

We're talking about the frosted bulbs here. (in my case it was the frosted floodlight bulbs, and Joe tried to argue that reflector bulbs would serve).

http://75.126.159.74/ge-soft-white-150-watt-general-purpose-a21-1-pack

you mean like those?

also they are not banned under the new efficiency standards.

to me it looks as if you want a problem to be somewhere where there is actually no problem.

 

[mhaze]

I'm assuming they are hanging on to an "after they sell out of current stock" amend to the above quote as an out.........

Right.

....Even if the electric heater that heats by element is more efficient (and it wouldn't be by a very large amount), you still have to consider the point source aspect. (As an example, some might like a bit of extra heat radiating around the ceiling instead of coming from a heater/vent source nearer the floor (and they might not even know they liked it until it's gone)).....

Um, IR from a bulb in say a ceiling can (that's what the resident Bulb Truthers OBJECT TO) is radiant heat, so it goes down for the most part. Convective heat such as you refer to heats the air, which then goes up. In other words, I know what I'm doing with those bulbs.

Also, it is a well known fact that where a house or building has an outside facility such as a pump house or a laundry, that just putting a incandescent bulb in and leaving it on during freezing winter nights will prevent things in that room from freezing. That works really, really well. Another use for light bulbs for heat is for small areas where there are animals, whether pets or stock. Then there are greenhouses, and single plants during the winter freeze, etc.

Heat is simply a useful thing. We're talking here 50 cents, and you have a small local heater. Not $20-50 for a 500-1500 watt heater.

Most people wouldn't question why a person bought or preferred one type of light bulb over another. It takes someone with a bit of the Bulb Truther to do that.

 

[mhaze]

http://75.126.159.74/ge-soft-white-150-watt-general-purpose-a21-1-pack

you mean like those?

also they are not banned under the new efficiency standards.

to me it looks as if you want a problem to be somewhere where there is actually no problem.

If you refer to what I had a problem with, and thereby went and stockpiled since they were no longer in the stores DUE TO THE BAN, it was the PAR30 frosted medium Edison base incandescent, 90 floodlight and then 150, those I think are called PAR40.

So you are getting nowhere looking things up, might as well quit.

Other posters have had issues with other bulbs, of course. But don't lecture me about what has vanished off the store shelves in my area, that's ridiculous.

Also, please don't try the argument that some bulbs may not be available because of capitalists shutting factories down due to the law, even though certain specific items in those factories were not banned.

You guys wanted to ban incandescent, you wanted the factories shut down, you got a law in that direction, take responsibility and man up to it. This wouldn't even be an "unintended consequence" - it was fully intended.

 

[DC]

If you refer to what I had a problem with, and thereby went and stockpiled since they were no longer in the stores DUE TO THE BAN, it was the PAR30 frosted medium Edison base incandescent, 90 floodlight and then 150, those I think are called PAR40.

So you are getting nowhere looking things up, might as well quit.

Other posters have had issues with other bulbs, of course. But don't lecture me about what has vanished off the store shelves in my area, that's ridiculous.

Also, please don't try the argument that some bulbs may not be available because of capitalists shutting factories down due to the law, even though certain specific items in those factories were not banned.

You guys wanted to ban incandescent, you wanted the factories shut down, you got a law in that direction, take responsibility and man up to it. This wouldn't even be an "unintended consequence" - it was fully intended.

evidence? the ban is not yet in power.

i didn't want to close factories. who actually wanted that?

ETA: btw i notices your new label "bulb truthers" that is very funny. again this label gets trown around by you that cryed me a river because AGW deniers are called deniers...... you are a hypocrit..... totaly laughable.

 

[Noztradamus]

source?
~~~
also you bulbs can be brought to every Home Depot shop in the USA and they take it back for recycle, same with Ikea and other stores. so where is the problem?

Which means they (or someone higher in the chain) throws it into the trash for you. And all it costs you is the resources you used to take it in for "recycling".

 

[DC]

Which means they (or someone higher in the chain) throws it into the trash for you. And all it costs you is the resources you used to take it in for "recycling".

evidence for this CT?

 

[excaza]

Also, it is a well known fact that where a house or building has an outside facility such as a pump house or a laundry, that just putting a incandescent bulb in and leaving it on during freezing winter nights will prevent things in that room from freezing. That works really, really well. Another use for light bulbs for heat is for small areas where there are animals, whether pets or stock. Then there are greenhouses, and single plants during the winter freeze, etc.

Heat lamps are not part of the ban. Companies (in Europe, at least) are just rebranding their incandescents as 'heat bulbs' so they can still sell incandescents to people who want them. If you have a specialized application for an incandescent, then you can still get them. Most people, however, don't need this option.

 

[Bri]

Many homes (whether they know it or not) use the bulbs to help heat areas that are heated by electric heaters that also heat by heating up a filament. Especially homes that use those types of electric heaters in northern climates. You can't say it is completely wasted energy in all cases.

Someone else brought up this point earlier in the thread, but it's not a very good argument. Using a space heater is far more efficient than a light bulb to heat a room. You're better off using an energy-efficient light bulb to light the room plus a space heater to heat the room.

-Bri

 

[excaza]

Using a space heater is far more efficient than a light bulb to heat a room.

A coil of wire is a coil of wire.

 

[Bri]

That (bolded) is a much better idea than the {word formerly known as ban}.

The word is "standards." Calling it a ban on incandescent bulbs would be like saying that auto safety standards are a ban on Fords. Safety standards ban some Fords (namely those that don't pass minimum safety requirements), and only the manufacture and import of new Fords (you can still own and sell an older non-compliant Ford).

PolitiFact rated the claim of banned incandescents "Pants on Fire":

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter...vative-pac-claims-democrats-banned-incandesc/

Tax the old ones, and use that to subsidize the new ones to make the price equal.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was supported by Republicans and Democrats, and signed into law by President Bush. It's unlikely that a tax would have gotten the same support.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

So against the quantified argument I made, you are going to counter with essentially unquantifiable assertions? If in fact you have no measures, you have no problem to be concerned with.

What quantified argument did you make? Your argument was irrelevant to the discussion. Whether or not nuclear power has less environment impact than coal has no bearing on whether energy-efficient bulbs have less environmental impact than non-compliant bulbs.

Rather dubious is such a claim, disregarding that it was already effectively neutered by the looming threat of Jevons Paradox.

You haven't shown that Jevons Paradox applies. It's unlikely that it does when the market is already saturated and light bulbs are readily available even to the poor. As far as I can tell, people would just replace their old bulbs with new ones. I don't see people installing lots of new fixtures in their houses because of the monetary savings of the new bulbs over the course of several years.

You tried to suggest that everyone would install low-voltage yard lighting. Not only do these systems use very little power, but the bulbs they use aren't regulated under the new standards. But I'm willing to change my mind on the Jevons Paradox angle if you can provide some evidence that it would apply to energy-efficient light bulbs.

-Bri

 

[Richard Masters]

LED's are ready to take over.

and why is it not a plus? in most countries more CFC's means, less coal burned, thus less mercury into the enviroment and other nasty stuff.

Non-incandescent light bulbs give me horrible headaches within 15 minutes of exposure. I don't know if LED lighting in light bulbs is the same as that used in LED backlit computer displays, but if it is, this is a huge problem for me.

 

[Bri]

Bri and Joe then argue that halogen incadescents or other products fill your needs so you should be happy blah blah blah. They dance around the "ban" by taking refuge in the energy standards which were in fact designed to ban those bulbs.

In this case, Joe was explaining why "ban on incandescent bulbs" is inaccurate. The standards ban only those incandescent bulbs that don't meet minimum efficiency requirements. The old incandescent bulbs you're referring to would be banned, but newer more efficient incandescent bulbs would not be banned.

It's a textbook example of pure doubletalk.

It was a correction of your inaccurate and misleading statement.

Bri and Joe argue that's "bad" and they should be replaced with "good" lights.

Bri suggested using a space heater so that I could use the "good" lights. Joe ignored the heating requirement because it didn't fit with his opinion set.

Nobody said any bulb was "good" or "bad." What I said was that using a light bulb to heat a room isn't the best way to heat a room regardless of the new standards. Using a space heater plus an energy efficient light bulb would heat your room better and save energy.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Non-incandescent light bulbs give me horrible headaches within 15 minutes of exposure. I don't know if LED lighting in light bulbs is the same as that used in LED backlit computer displays, but if it is, this is a huge problem for me.

So use compliant incandescent bulbs.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

A coil of wire is a coil of wire.

That's a ridiculous statement. Some heaters are more efficient than others (i.e. produce more heat for the amount of energy consumed). Some light bulbs are more efficient than others (i.e. produce more light for the amount of energy consumed). Few light bulbs are more efficient at heating a room than an efficient heater.

-Bri

 

[excaza]

That's a ridiculous statement.

No, it's not. It agrees completely with the actual physical principles utilized. Heat emitted is a function of the resistance of the wire (or whatever conducting medium you're using).

Some heaters are more efficient than others (i.e. produce more heat for the amount of energy consumed). Some light bulbs are more efficient than others (i.e. produce more light for the amount of energy consumed). Few light bulbs are more efficient at heating a room than an efficient heater.

Can you please show the math you are using to support this assertion?

 

[Bri]

Also, I would like to agree with an early poster that it is very unlikely that even 1 percent of all CFL's (in the US) are being disposed of any other way than by just tossing them in the trash. People have been told to recycle batteries (AA, AAA, etc) for years, and only a fraction of a percent are.

Even if every one of them were being put in the trash instead of recycling, there would still be a net benefit to CFL's in terms of mercury. The tiny amount of mercury in each CFL adds up to far less mercury than would be emitted by power plants to produce the power saved by the CFL's.

Of course, the more people recycle the more of the mercury can be recovered. As another poster pointed out, many stores now offer to recycle CFL's even if you didn't buy yours at that store.

Other high-efficiency light bulb technologies (including incandescents) contain no mercury.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Can you please show the math you are using to support this assertion?

That a "coil of wire is just a coil of wire?" If that were the case, all "coils of wire" would produce the same amount of heat. The fact that some produce light instead of heat shows that not all "coils of wire" are equally efficient at producing heat.

In addition, it should be fairly obvious that during the summer you don't want the extra heat produced by bulbs.

Efficient space heaters circulate the air rather than just heating the air above your head and therefore are much more efficient at heating a room than light bulbs would be.

Here are a few articles on the subject concerning heating using light bulbs compared to an efficient space heater plus energy-efficient bulbs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4922496.stm

http://www.salon.com/technology/how...21/freezing_by_compact_fluorescent/index.html

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/349636

-Bri

 

[Richard Masters]

So use compliant incandescent bulbs.

-Bri

I couldn't find any for a while. When I did, I still got headaches. I don't know if they have a different color temperature, or what. I got lucky and found a traditional unused light bulb at home, and that's what I'm currently using.

There's a possibility that through trial and error I'll find an adequate light-bulb, but that's rather inconvenient as the new light-bulbs are expensive and the headaches last for a few hours, rendering me unproductive for a great portion of my time.

With a systematic experiment I could try 7 different light-bulbs in a week, though without guarantee that I'll find an adequate non-headache-inducing alternative.

 

[excaza]

First of all, it should be fairly obvious that during the summer you don't want the extra heat produced by bulbs.

Agreed, but this is irrelevant to my question.

Efficient space heaters circulate the air rather than just heating the air above your head and therefore are much more efficient at heating a room than light bulbs would be.

Not necessarily, if you have a fan with the same power draw as the one in the space heater you're going to have the same circulation.

Here are a few articles on the subject concerning heating using light bulbs compared to an efficient space heater plus energy-efficient bulbs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4922496.stm

Doesn't discuss the heating question.

http://www.salon.com/technology/how...21/freezing_by_compact_fluorescent/index.html
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/349636

Both discuss heating using electricity vs. using a fossil fuel.

So again I ask, what basis do you have for your assertion that a space heater is better at generating heat than an incandescent light bulb? Both are using a coil of wire, and both are designed to be as inefficient as possible in order to generate the most heat with a given power draw.

(edit: I do want to note that I think the heating argument in favor of incandescents is a stupid one, I just don't agree with your statement that a space heater is better at generating heat than a bulb)