Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[mhaze]

.... It turns out, of course, that the bulbs you're stockpiling are exempt from the standards, so I guess you're stockpiling for the sheer joy of it, yet still complaining about the standards.....

No, they were not exempt.

No, as I said, I'd like you to add "some" because it's more accurate and less misleading. If you really wanted to get the point across that the old-style incandescent light bulbs aren't efficient enough to meet the standards, but that other incandescents are, you could easily have done so without being inaccurate and misleading!....

But that's not correct.

You have been disingenous. You've been only discussing the parts of the law that phase in in 2012 and 2014. Why don't you tell the entire truth, about the part of the law that phases in in 2020? Those ban the "halogen incadescent bulbs" that you claim meet the provisions of the law.

It's not I that is inaccurate or misleading.

• Incandescent: 12-17lm/w
• Halogen: 16-23lm/w

 

[Bri]

No, they were not exempt.

They aren't reflector bulbs?

But that's not correct.

You have been disingenous. You've been only discussing the parts of the law that phase in in 2012 and 2014. Why don't you tell the entire truth, about the part of the law that phases in in 2020? Those ban the "halogen incadescent bulbs" that you claim meet the provisions of the law.

It's not I that is inaccurate or misleading.

• Incandescent: 12-17lm/w
• Halogen: 16-23lm/w

I don't think "disingenuous" means what you think it means. Even if I was mistaken (I don't believe I was mistaken, but even if I was) it would not follow that I'm being disingenuous.

The Philips EcoVantage bulb is an example of an incandescent bulb that meets the efficiency requirements and will therefore not be affected by the standards. If you have evidence that all incandescents will be banned in 2020, please post your source.

ETA: OK, I assume that the source of your rant is that in 2020 the minimum efficiency increases and your argument is that current halogen bulbs don't meet the future 2020 standards. I don't know if it's true or not, but several companies (including General Electric) estimate that they will have incandescent bulbs that meet the 2020 standards well before 2020. So, again, it would be inaccurate and misleading to say that the standards ban all incandescents, even in 2020.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

They weren't reflector bulbs?

Please look up "disingenuous" in the dictionary. I don't think it means what you think it means. Even if I was mistaken (I don't believe I was mistaken, but even if I was) it would not follow that I'm being disingenuous.

The Philips EcoVantage bulb is an example of an incandescent bulb that meets the efficiency requirements and will therefore not be affected by the standards. If you have evidence that all incandescents will be banned in 2020, please post your source.

-Bri

No, the Phillips blah-blah-blah bulb meets the 25% improvement standard that phases in shortly, but does not meet the 200% standard that phases in a bit later. And no incandescent will. Get your facts right before telling other people what to do.

Disingenuous - I already posted to this forum a dictionary definition.

As I mentioned, the bulbs that I stockpiled were ones that were no longer available on store shelves due to the phase in of this law. That's a pretty simple thing, isn't it? You go in the store and find that the bulbs are not there, instead there are CFL "equivalents". So you go home and order them off ebay in quantity.

....I assume that the source of your rant is that in 2020 the minimum efficiency increases and your argument is that current halogen bulbs don't meet the future 2020 standards. I don't know if it's true or not, but several companies (including General Electric) estimate....

It isn't a rant, I just point out have you have been misleading people. As for whether you know it is true or don't know it is true, that's exactly why I listed the lumen/watt in a prior post.

But if you don't know if it is true or not, why act like you know what is true and lecture people on what to do with light bulbs? That makes no sense to me.

Oh, and regarding the assertion that these companies will make 200% more efficient incandescent bulbs? That falls into the "Green Fantasy" possibly into the "Wacko Lunatic" subcategory or the "Improbable according to laws of physics" subcategory.

But as noted by another poster, I think it's going to all be irrelevant by 2020 in any case, and total energy use for lighting will have gone up, precisely because of better lighting technologies and the opening up of new categories of consumer applications.

 

[Bri]

No, the Phillips blah-blah-blah bulb meets the 25% improvement standard that phases in shortly, but does not meet the 200% standard that phases in a bit later. And no incandescent will. Get your facts right before telling other people what to do.

Can you see into the future? Several companies are already working on incandescent technologies that will meet the 2020 standards. The 2020 standards will NOT ban incandescent bulbs that comply with the energy efficiency requirements.

Disingenuous - I already posted to this forum a dictionary definition.

Then you should know that it doesn't mean the same thing as "incorrect" or "mistaken."

As I mentioned, the bulbs that I stockpiled were ones that were no longer available on store shelves due to the phase in of this law. That's a pretty simple thing, isn't it? You go in the store and find that the bulbs are not there, instead there are CFL "equivalents". So you go home and order them off ebay in quantity.

Were your stockpiled bulbs flood light style reflector bulbs or weren't they? Yes or no?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

But if you don't know if it is true or not, why act like you know what is true and lecture people on what to do with light bulbs? That makes no sense to me.

My previous post indicated that I don't know if the compliant incandescent bulbs that are currently available meet the efficiency requirements that will kick in in 2020. I DO know that incandescent bulbs are not banned by the standards in 2020 as your misleading and inaccurate remarks indicate.

Oh, and regarding the assertion that these companies will make 200% more efficient incandescent bulbs? That falls into the "Green Fantasy" possibly into the "Wacko Lunatic" subcategory or the "Improbable according to laws of physics" subcategory.

My how you have to twist my words to make your points. I didn't assert that companies will make 200% more efficient incandescent bulbs (I can't tell the future as you apparently can). I said that if they do, those bulbs won't be prohibited by the standards. Several manufacturers apparently disagree with you concerning the probability of that happening. They know more about the limits of the technology than I do, but apparently less than you do, so I'll leave you to argue with them about that. Regardless, unless you know that no incandescent bulbs that comply with the standards will be available in 2020, your statements are inaccurate and misleading.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

..... I didn't assert that companies will make 200% more efficient incandescent bulbs (I can't tell the future as you apparently can). I said that if they do, those bulbs won't be prohibited by the standards. Several manufacturers apparently disagree with you concerning the probability of that happening. They know more about the limits of the technology than I do, but apparently less than you do, so I'll leave you to argue with them about that. Regardless, unless you know that no incandescent bulbs that comply with the standards will be available in 2020, your statements are inaccurate and misleading.

-Bri

Well, by this logic, we know that several companies are working on hydrogen fusion reactors. Unless you know more than they do, you have to agree that there is a likelihood of them coming on line, and then all concern about imported fuel, fossil fuel pollution, and all the silly fantasies about global warming are arguments quite passe.

Thus, (by your logic) all the connections of light bulbs with carbon footprints and saving the planet are inaccurate and misleading.



That's not MY position. My position is simply that newer technologies will increase energy used in lighting because higher efficiencies will open more economically feasible applications for lighting, and that the law we are talking about is silly, possibly counter productive, and already someone outdated.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The intent of the law is to ban traditional incandescent bulbs.

No, it's not. The intent is to ban inefficient light bulbs other than those in a long list of exemptions.

If what you are saying is correct, what would motivate that intent? Do you suppose lawmakers just have a thing against some traditional incandescent bulbs and are lying about the expressed intent of reducing energy consumption?

This is beginning to sound like a conspiracy theory (especially given the broad support the law had when it was passed back in 2007).

Second, there is this thing we call "separation of powers" in the US of A, and the passage of a law on any subject is not related to it's constitutionality. In fact, the prior examples I gave, some of them were of laws passed which were, on examination, found to be unconstitutional.

Thirdly, there is a little problem of negative versus positive liberties and the way they are explicitly outlined in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I promise you there will be no successful attempt to challenge this part of the EISA as being "unconstitutional".

Despite all your concerns about the separation of powers, the law was passed by the Legislative Branch and signed by the Chief Executive. As such, it enjoys the presumptions of constitutionality unless or until the Judiciary finds otherwise.

The fact that other laws have been declared unconstitutional is not an argument that this one is unconstitutional. Do you have a legal theory as to why you think it should be deemed unconstitutional?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

As I mentioned, the bulbs that I stockpiled were ones that were no longer available on store shelves due to the phase in of this law.

Yes, you made this assertion but failed to defend it. I've pointed out several times that the law explicitly exempts reflector bulbs.

I notice you didn't answer Bri's direct question, are these reflector bulbs?

If they are, they are indeed exempt from the new energy efficiency standards.

The fact is, there are many reasons why a store might not stock a given product other than the result of a federal energy efficiency standard. The most likely reason, in this case, is that better products are outcompeting that product.

You can't buy a new Polaroid Land camera anymore, so does it follow that it was banned by federal law?

Also, several of us have shown that the bulbs (which are exempt) are still available on-line. There is nothing in the law restricting sales. And there's certainly nothing in it distinguishing brick-and-mortar stores from on-line sales.

 

[mhaze]

....The fact that other laws have been declared unconstitutional is not an argument that this one is unconstitutional. Do you have a legal theory as to why you think it should be deemed unconstitutional?

Pay attention in class, please.

Bri's question about constitutionality concerned the USE of incandescent bulbs. Not the law you speak of.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, by this logic, we know that several companies are working on hydrogen fusion reactors. Unless you know more than they do, you have to agree that there is a likelihood of them coming on line, and then all concern about imported fuel, fossil fuel pollution, and all the silly fantasies about global warming are arguments quite passe.

Thus, (by your logic) all the connections of light bulbs with carbon footprints and saving the planet are inaccurate and misleading.

You have mischaracterized Bri's logic. You asserted that it's impossible for anyone ever to develop incandescent bulbs that will comply with the energy standards. (You even asserted that wrt to the standards that will take effect beginning in January 2012, even though there are already incandescent bulbs in the stores that comply. Remember?* You said it was scientifically impossible?)

Bri pointed out that you can't know that for sure. And if someone did develop such an incandescent bulb, the law would not prohibit their manufacture.

You have claimed that Bri is asserting that we know for sure someone will develop an incandescent bulb that will comply with the 2020 standards. He is not. He's pointing out that you don't know it's impossible, and if it happens, those bulbs will not be banned.

So again, you have created yet another argument by faulty analogy.

*ETA: To help you remember, this was back before I disabused you of your erroneous belief that halogen lightbulbs are not incandescent and do not use a filament. Your ignorance of the facts you're attempting to argue about is appalling.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

and all the silly fantasies about global warming are arguments quite passe.

If by "passe" you mean "is the consensus of climate science" then yes--except that you'd be abusing the language.

No surprise that your dogmatic apologetics are motivated by climate change denial.

Also. . . I'm *still* waiting for your to retract or defend your claim that the EISA is written with "snarky" language.

 

[mhaze]

If by "passe" you mean "is the consensus of climate science".....

All of which is falsified with hydrogen fusion power, which the consensus of scientists would easily agree with, given a major factor in emissions is powerplants, so my point is valid.

If Bri can stand on the possibility of technical innovation creating efficient incandescent bulbs that operate at the melting point of tungsten, then I can stand on the possibility of fusion power rendering the entire energy crisis a thing of the past.

Fair's fair.

As I noted, this isn't my position (I only point out the illogic with further illogic), my position is different.

 

[mhaze]

Can you see into the future? Several companies are already working on incandescent technologies that will meet the 2020 standards. The 2020 standards will NOT ban incandescent bulbs that comply with the energy efficiency requirements.

Then you should know that <<disingenous>> it doesn't mean the same thing as "incorrect" or "mistaken."-Bri

Okay, I will agree with that. If you were being disingenous you wouldn't be wrong...yet...again...

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/12/ge-folds-on-efficient-bulb.php

 

[Bri]

If Bri can stand on the possibility of technical innovation creating efficient incandescent bulbs that operate at the melting point of tungsten, then I can stand on the possibility of fusion power rendering the entire energy crisis a thing of the past.

The theoretical upper limit for incandescent lamp luminous efficacy is around 52 lumens per watt, the theoretical value emitted by tungsten at its melting point. The 2020 standards are 45 lumens per watt. It is a possibility that some form of incandescent bulb will be available that meets the standard before 2020. If so, the standard wouldn't prohibit such a bulb.

I have no idea what that has to do with fusion power.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have no idea what that has to do with fusion power.

I was going to say I think he's trying to change the subject to an anti-climate change conspiracy discussion, but best I can tell, he's trying to argue by faulty analogy still or again.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

All of which is falsified with hydrogen fusion power, which the consensus of scientists would easily agree with, given a major factor in emissions is powerplants, so my point is valid.

If Bri can stand on the possibility of technical innovation creating efficient incandescent bulbs that operate at the melting point of tungsten, then I can stand on the possibility of fusion power rendering the entire energy crisis a thing of the past.

Fair's fair.

As I noted, this isn't my position (I only point out the illogic with further illogic), my position is different.

You're doing the same thing. Bri is not standing on certainty that there will be innovations leading to incandescents that comply with the 2020 standards. Your argument that we need not be concerned about climate change depends on the certainty that fusion generators will solve the present energy (and greenhouse gas emissions) problems before it's too late.

Bri is merely pointing out that if someone in the future develops such a lightbulb it will not be banned because the law is not a ban on incandescent bulbs.

Your argument about possible safe and efficient fusion generators is not parallel.

 

[Bri]

If you were being disingenous you wouldn't be wrong...yet...again...

I thought you said you knew what the word meant.

Speaking of disingenuity, before we continue with this discussion, please answer my question:

Were your stockpiled bulbs flood light style reflector bulbs or weren't they? Yes or no?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I was going to say I think he's trying to change the subject to an anti-climate change conspiracy discussion, but best I can tell, he's trying to argue by faulty analogy still or again.

I think your first inclination was right. He's trying to change the subject.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, haze. You've danced around it. Earlier in the thread you mentioned that the kinds of bulbs you were stockpiling were some kind of speciality bulb (even coming close to admitting that you weren't aware until I pointed it out that they were in one or more of the exempt categories).

So--are they reflector bulbs or not?

Pointing out what type of bulbs are on the shelf at Home Depot does not answer the question. The question is pertinent since, as you now know, all reflector bulbs are exempt.

 

[mhaze]

The theoretical upper limit for incandescent lamp luminous efficacy is around 52 lumens per watt, the theoretical value emitted by tungsten at its melting point. The 2020 standards are 45 lumens per watt. It is a possibility that some form of incandescent bulb will be available that meets the standard before 2020. If so, the standard wouldn't prohibit such a bulb.

I have no idea what that has to do with fusion power.

-Bri

Since it's possible we'll have virtually unlimited fusion power by 2020, and all the militant concerns about controlling peoples' use of light bulbs will be laughably ridiculous.

So it's possible we shall have an 80% efficient light bulb using filaments, eh? THAT must be why GE dropped their efficient tungsten bulb project as I linked to.

THAT makes perfect sense.

No....wait.....

You've already had to move way over into the corner on simple versus complex sentences.

Now you have to move way over on incandescent and make moonbat green promises that someone "might make one that was compliant" where previously you were saying "they exist?"

Bulb Truther.