Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[JoeTheJuggler]

And don't forget that as computer technology advanced, and power consumption went down, usage of computers went up by corresponding orders of magnitude, such that now....

Total power consumption by computers far exceeds what it did for previous generations of "inefficient computers".

So what? That we don't have (or can even come up with at the present time) a feasible law that would effectively reduce the energy consumption of computers does nothing to argue that the EISA lightbulb energy standards are wrong or bad.

That's akin to arguing that if the theory of evolution doesn't certainly explain every possible natural world measurement, then the explanations it does provide must be wrong.

 

[mhaze]

So what? That we don't have (or can even come up with at the present time) a feasible law that would effectively reduce the energy consumption of computers ....

And would you like to have that?

 

[This is The End]

So we should ban all inefficient technologies and force people to update, say, their computers with better technologies regularily, for instance ? Where do you stop ? Nanny state, indeed.

The fact of the matter is, the light bulbs that the past few generations grew up with are soon to be banned.

So the OP left a couple adjectives out of the Title of this thread (old style / inefficient)....

It's a ban.

Whether or not there are reasons why they are better than the new 'alternatives' doesn't really matter.

It's not like we are talking about cigarettes or something, we are talking about light bulbs.

Now if the government banned the use of old style bulbs in all government buildings and public areas, that would be fine. But making them not be available for people that want them in their own private home is uncalled for. Even if they don't have a valid reason why they still like them.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And would you like to have that?

Irrelevant. I'm pointing out that your analogy is faulty. You were trying to argue the on-topic point using an argument by analogy.

ETA: And I'm still waiting for you to support your claim that the law in question uses "snarky" language. I'm not very amenable to following you off topic when you continue to ignore my challenge to your first post on this thread.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The fact of the matter is, the light bulbs that the past few generations grew up with are soon to be banned.

So the OP left a couple adjectives out of the Title of this thread (old style / inefficient)....

And you are too.

The important one being "some". Otherwise the statement is equivalent to saying "all the lightbulbs that the past few generations grew up with are soon to be banned"--and that statement isn't true.

Making the claim that all inefficient or all old-style incandescent bulbs will be banned is also not true.

And again, those statements are not the equivalent of saying the law establishes energy efficiency guidelines for standard size, color, function, etc. bulbs which will effectively ban the production (not sale or use) of standard size, brightness, color, function, etc. traditional incandescent light bulbs.

The one sounds quite draconian, and the other does not.

 

[mhaze]

The fact of the matter is, the light bulbs that the past few generations grew up with are soon to be banned.

So the OP left a couple adjectives out of the Title of this thread (old style / inefficient)....

It's a ban.

Whether or not there are reasons why they are better than the new 'alternatives' doesn't really matter.

It's not like we are talking about cigarettes or something, we are talking about light bulbs.

Now if the government banned the use of old style bulbs in all government buildings and public areas, that would be fine. But making them not be available for people that want them in their own private home is uncalled for. Even if they don't have a valid reason why they still like them.

Here's another yet another analogy, and I'm sorry, but it seems every single one argues against the thin reed that Joe stands on.

Nudity is banned (but the topless dancers are okay because they have pasties on their titties).

Alcohol is illegal within the city limits of Youtown, USA (but it's okay in private clubs).

Basically, Joe has a lot of argumentation he wants to engage in but under it he just wants to force you and I to act in ways that you and I may not agree with. BUT...

...even if we do agree in whole or part, we don't want him telling us what to do.

....The one sounds quite draconian, and the other does not.

So you'd like the ban to not SOUND draconian?

Gee, I can sort of see that. It's sort of like putting lipstick on the piggie, right?

 

[OldBloke]

There is still the problem with CFLs (mercury vapor) having a very limited color spectrum, with extreme spikes and troughs. It's complicated to explain why this is important for color matching of products which have different pigments. It isn't simply about whether a lamp gives a light which seems more "warm" or "cool".

Two painted products which appear to be the same color under sunlight may look quite different colors under a CFC lamp because one product reflects a broad range of the spectrum to look a certain kind of green, whereas the other may look exactly the same green under sunlight by reflecting narrower spikes of color frequency.
Under CFL lighting, the latter will be greatly affected by luck - whether the spikes reflected by the pigment coincide with the spikes in the light source.

http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/lightandcolor/images/lightsourcesfigure3.jpg

As you can see from the graph, LEDs are somewhat better than mercury vapor lamps.
Filtering (a separate filter gel or coating the outside of the globe with an absorbent pigment) can correct for spikes, such as reducing the blue spike in "white" LEDs, but can't correct for troughs - missing wavelengths - such as an LED's poverty at each end of the visible spectrum (violet and red).

http://web.ncf.ca/jim/misc/cfl/spectra.jpg

 

[Bri]

The fact of the matter is, the light bulbs that the past few generations grew up with are soon to be banned.

So the OP left a couple adjectives out of the Title of this thread (old style / inefficient)....

It's a ban.

Whether or not there are reasons why they are better than the new 'alternatives' doesn't really matter.

Nobody said it isn't a ban. I really don't know why you and mhaze keep repeating this as if anyone has previously refuted it. Some of us have simply pointed out that the standards don't single out incandescent bulbs, there are incandescent bulbs that meet the minimum efficiency standards, and that the standards don't apply to reflectors and other specialty bulbs.

It's not like we are talking about cigarettes or something, we are talking about light bulbs.

Now if the government banned the use of old style bulbs in all government buildings and public areas, that would be fine. But making them not be available for people that want them in their own private home is uncalled for. Even if they don't have a valid reason why they still like them.

You are more than welcome to your opinion on this. I happen to disagree with it, but it's a valid opinion.

-Bri

 

[OldBloke]

Even if they don't have a valid reason for liking them.

I suspect there are many people who can't articulate (in a way which sounds technically valid) why "I just don't like them" but do actually have a valid reason, because some things look weird under CFL lights.

 

[Bri]

Here's another yet another analogy, and I'm sorry, but it seems every single one argues against the thin reed that Joe stands on.

Nudity is banned (but the topless dancers are okay because they have pasties on their titties).

Alcohol is illegal within the city limits of Youtown, USA (but it's okay in private clubs).

The fact that both of the above statements have a very good chance of being misunderstood without the added parenthetical only helps advance Joe's argument, not yours.

But these are poor analogies because they don't specify a category of item of item of which only a part is actually banned.

A better example: safety standards ban blue cars in the United States.

Sure, that's a true statement, but is misleading. First, the only blue cars banned are those that don't meet the safety standards. Second, the safety standards don't specify color so it's only incidental that some cars that don't comply with the standards happen to be blue (other color cars that don't comply are also banned). And third, some cars (including blue ones) are exempt from the standards altogether.

Basically, Joe has a lot of argumentation he wants to engage in but under it he just wants to force you and I to act in ways that you and I may not agree with. BUT...

...even if we do agree in whole or part, we don't want him telling us what to do.

First if all, Joe isn't telling you what to do. He supports a law that tells you what to do. All laws do that, by the way. This isn't some sort of slippery slope. It's just a law. You may disagree with the law, but you don't have a constitutional right to use any light bulbs you want.

So you'd like the ban to not SOUND draconian?

Gee, I can sort of see that. It's sort of like putting lipstick on the piggie, right?

No, most people wouldn't find the standards particularly draconian unless you mischaracterize it as you have been doing throughout the thread. I for one would just like to see you not use accurate descriptions of the standards so that people can decide for themselves based on full knowledge. Is there a reason you don't want people to understand the standards so they can have an informed opinion about it?

-Bri

 

[OldBloke]

It's a bit like the old argument about neon fluorescent tubes. A rented scientist may assert that humans can't perceive any flicker, and that the "imagined" ill effects of working under fluorescents all day is just paranoia, but there's evidence people can be affected by flicker at a frequency faster than what they can easily perceive consciously.

Similarly, scientists rented by lighting companies may assert that as we only have three types of cones, we should not be affected by a light source which has extreme spikes and troughs in the spectrum. Maybe some scientists are not affected but artists and designers certainly are.

I think people have a right to their perception that tungsten lamps seem more "natural". There are actually valid reasons for that perception.

 

[Bri]

I suspect there are many people who can't articulate (in a way which sounds technically valid) why "I just don't like them" but do actually have a valid reason, because some things look weird under CFL lights.

A valid complaint. Some CFL's have a bluer/cooler color than some incandescents you might be used to. However, CFL's now come in a full range of color temperatures, so you probably just need to find a "warmer" color (new labeling is required to list color temperature on the box).

Also, if there is some other characteristic you don't like about CFL's, did you know that there are incandescent bulbs that comply with the efficiency standards?

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

So we should ban all inefficient technologies and force people to update, say, their computers with better technologies regularily, for instance ? Where do you stop ? Nanny state, indeed.

It's rather strange how the ban came about isn't it? By virtue of the cost savings incandescents where on their way out anyways.

I honestly think it was a political move, to make it look like something is being done by the government and to make people feel like they are doing something.

I'm curious what the ban actually accomplishes in terms of reducing CO2, and how that would compare to something like a nation wide campaign to get people to check the air pressure in their tires or drive the speed limit twice a week.

 

[Ziggurat]

Also, if there is some other characteristic you don't like about CFL's, did you know that there are incandescent bulbs that comply with the efficiency standards?

Halogens have a cooler color temperature than standard incandescents. That is an unavoidable consequence of their increased efficiency. And they also pose a greater fire hazard than standard incandescents.

 

[Bri]

3bodyproblem, there were some studies done and reports submitted to Congress before it was passed with bipartisan support and signed into law by Bush. The reports are available on the Internet which list the estimates of savings to consumers and reductions in greenhouse emissions over the next 30 years or so under the new standards.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Halogens have a cooler color temperature than standard incandescents. That is an unavoidable consequence of their increased efficiency. And they also pose a greater fire hazard than standard incandescents.

Halogens are typically warmer in color temperature than CFL's. But most types of bulbs come in a variety of color temperatures, so if you think one bulb makes things "look funny" you can probably find one that doesn't.

The new packaging standards make it fairly easy to tell what color a bulb is. Personally, I'm stockpiling the old packages because I like to be surprised. Can you believe they're actually BANNING cardboard packaging that's been used for light bulbs for over 75 years?

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

..... You may disagree with the law, but you don't have a constitutional right to use any light bulbs you want.

Yes, actually I do.

 

[mhaze]

There is still the problem with CFLs (mercury vapor) having a very limited color spectrum, with extreme spikes and troughs. It's complicated to explain why this is important for color matching of products which have different pigments. It isn't simply about whether a lamp gives a light which seems more "warm" or "cool".

Two painted products which appear to be the same color under sunlight may look quite different colors under a CFC lamp because one product reflects a broad range of the spectrum to look a certain kind of green, whereas the other may look exactly the same green under sunlight by reflecting narrower spikes of color frequency.
Under CFL lighting, the latter will be greatly affected by luck - whether the spikes reflected by the pigment coincide with the spikes in the light source.

http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/lightandcolor/images/lightsourcesfigure3.jpg

As you can see from the graph, LEDs are somewhat better than mercury vapor lamps.
Filtering (a separate filter gel or coating the outside of the globe with an absorbent pigment) can correct for spikes, such as reducing the blue spike in "white" LEDs, but can't correct for troughs - missing wavelengths - such as an LED's poverty at each end of the visible spectrum (violet and red).

http://web.ncf.ca/jim/misc/cfl/spectra.jpg

contrary evidence such as you present will be ignored by bulb truthers unless it zooms right over their heads.

Also they seem to have no consideration for lighting quality, only the efficiency.

 

[Furcifer]

3bodyproblem, there were some studies done and reports submitted to Congress before it was passed with bipartisan support and signed into law by Bush. The reports are available on the Internet which list the estimates of savings to consumers and reductions in greenhouse emissions over the next 30 years or so under the new standards.

-Bri

30 years? That's odd. Ban or no ban I doubt if incandescents will(would) be popular in 10 years.

 

[BirdyBuddy]

I'm considering creating a sockpuppet forum name just for this thread...