Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[johnny karate]

mhaze, just out of curiosity, how are you safeguarding your light bulb stockpile when you are away from home?

Do you keep them in an alligator pit or have you constructed something more elaborate like some kind of motion-sensitive mechanism discharging either acid or lava?

 

[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.

If we had unlimited free clean power by 2020, then of course the lightbulb standards (and many other standards such as those for automobile efficiency and emissions) would likely be removed. No idea what your point is.

Now, please answer my question:

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

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

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.....

LOL....you are standing, in part, on the idea that forcing expensive lightbulbs at people will "solve the present energy (and greenhouse gas emissions) problems before it's too late...

...and I've noted it's quite likely that because of changes in lighting utilizaiton, energy used for lighting will increase substantially.

So how does that jive with your Serious Business of Saving the Planet One Light Bulb At a Time?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

LOL....you are standing, in part, on the idea that forcing expensive lightbulbs at people will "solve the present energy (and greenhouse gas emissions) problems before it's too late...

Nope. Please review where you lifted that partial quote from. I was speaking of your claims about fusion generators. And I have never said anything about "forcing expensive lightbulbs at people". Not even once.

...and I've noted it's quite likely that because of changes in lighting utilizaiton, energy used for lighting will increase substantially.

Yes, but you're wrong.

So how does that jive [sic] with your Serious Business of Saving the Planet One Light Bulb At a Time?

Yet another straw man position which doesn't even jibe with your previous claims that the law in question will ban all incandescents. No one claimed that one light bulb will make a significant difference.

Now--how about you quit evading the question: the bulbs you're stockpiling, are they reflector bulbs?

Also, what about your claim that the EISA was written in "snarky" language? What about your claim that the law was passed by liberals? What about your claim that your energy use comes entirely from nuclear and has no effect on the environment?

But mostly I'm interested in the first question.

 

[mhaze]

No one claimed that one light bulb will make a significant difference.
.....

"Saving the Planet One Light Bulb At A Time" is a well understood progressive and greenie catchy tune style phrase with 1.7M google hits, so no misrepresentation here.

There's no need to misrepresent this well known phrase with us non-Progs. We know what the phrase is, we know what it means, we know the kind of people that believe it.

.... I was speaking of your claims about fusion generators. .....

I haven't made any CLAIMS about fusion generators. Just pointing out a possibility of a technical advance is not a claim, but a possibility. One that's far more likely than an 80% efficient tungsten filament bulb, the claim that BRI made under the false assumption that the GE advanced bulb program actually .... existed....

Quote:
...and I've noted it's quite likely that because of changes in lighting utilizaiton, energy used for lighting will increase substantially.

Yes, but you're wrong..

This references my previous pointing out Jevons Paradox may well apply to energy and lightbulbs. It's a sound position that I provided evidenceI had previously elaborated on, and presented a position pretty reasonably. To which you responded with an unsubstantiated CLAIM. Just FYI. Was that because well, Jevons....just doesn't fit with your worldview? If so, why can't reality fit with your worldview?

Oh and by the way, please stop with the Saul Alinsky tactics "Pin your Opponent, personalize the argument" which in this case comes across as nothing more than morose and obsessive perserverating with minutae of someone's selection and use of light bulbs, which in itself is quite ridiculous and characteristic of

A BULB TRUTHER!

 

[Blue Mountain]

..... 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.

I believe you are an American. Please show us where in the the Constitution of the United States (article and section, or amendment) you believe you are given the right to use whatever form of lighting you choose.

Well? Which article and section, or amendment, of the Constitution grants you the right to use any light bulb you want?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well? Which article and section, or amendment, of the Constitution grants you the right to use any light bulb you want?

Don't hold your breath.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

"Saving the Planet One Light Bulb At A Time" is a well understood progressive and greenie catchy tune style phrase with 1.7M google hits, so no misrepresentation here.

There's no need to misrepresent this well known phrase with us non-Progs. We know what the phrase is, we know what it means, we know the kind of people that believe it.

No misrepresentation? Who said that? And this law most definitely doesn't affect one bulb at a time!

I haven't made any CLAIMS about fusion generators. Just pointing out a possibility of a technical advance is not a claim, but a possibility.

I've already pointed out that your argument by faulty analogy depends on the certainty of a practical fusion generator. Bri's comment (the same as one I've made) is that the law would not ban any future compliant incandescent bulb if one should be developed. It does not rely on the certainty that such a bulb will be developed. It's enough to prove that the law does not constitute a ban on incandescents.

So. . . will you ever answer the question about the floodlights you've been stockpiling? Are they reflector lights?

Will you ever defend you comment about the law being written in "snarky" language? Will you ever address your claim that your electricity usage has no effect on the environment because you get your electricity from a nuclear plant? Your claim that halogen bulbs aren't incandescents and don't use filaments?

But especially the one about the lights you're stockpiling. You even once asked why else you would be doing this if they weren't going to be banned. (As if someone's behavior proves that their belief is true!)

 

[Bri]

I haven't made any CLAIMS about fusion generators. Just pointing out a possibility of a technical advance is not a claim, but a possibility. One that's far more likely than an 80% efficient tungsten filament bulb, the claim that BRI made under the false assumption that the GE advanced bulb program actually .... existed....

(bold mine) mhaze, do you want to bet which is more likely?

Although G.E. is now concentrating on LED technologies, there are several other companies still working on incandescents that will meet the 2020 standards.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/can-incandescent-bulbs-be-made-efficient/

Meanwhile, researchers at Deposition Sciences in Santa Rosa, Calif., have found a way to increase the efficacy of an incandescent to nearly 40 lumens a watt by using reflective coatings that allow waste heat to be converted to visible light.​

Note that's 40 lumens per watt -- not quite at the 2020 standard of 45 lumens per watt but already pretty close.

So again, until we know what technologies are going to be around beyond 2020, I wouldn't count out incandescents.

Note that even if there are no incandescents that meet the standards by 2020, your statement is STILL inaccurate and misleading. The standards don't prevent someone from developing an incandescent that gets 45 lumens per watt after 2020. If there are indeed incandescents manufactured at any time after 2020 that meet the minimum efficiency requirements, they will not be banned under the new standards.

By now this won't surprise anyone following the thread: once again, you are making inaccurate and misleading statements by saying that the standards will ban incandescent bulbs in 2020.

Perhaps you missed this when I asked you before:

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

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Oh and by the way, please stop with the Saul Alinsky tactics "Pin your Opponent, personalize the argument" which in this case comes across as nothing more than morose and obsessive perserverating with minutae of someone's selection and use of light bulbs, which in itself is quite ridiculous and characteristic of

A BULB TRUTHER!

So calling me names proves what?

And I have not been personalizing the discussion. My questions are all about relevant and on-topic claims you have made.

The list of challenges to claims you've made that you continue to ignore are all germane to the discussion and based on accurate characterizations of statements you've made. (Though I strongly suspect you just misused the term "snarky" and think it means something other than what it does mean.)

 

[mhaze]

Well? Which article and section, or amendment, of the Constitution grants you the right to use any light bulb you want?

Wrong question. Rights not set forth in the Constitution are defined as being delegated to the States. By not explicitly stating that it is not the case, it's handed to the States to decide. The absence of a mention of lighting devices is the limitation of the Constitution from lighting devices.

The original statement was "The Constitution doesn't give you the right..." which you've now changed, restating it .... to some advantage?

It's certainly not the first time someone has mis framed the Constitution. These days, you could make an argument on restricting use of...say...CFL bulbs from a public health standpoint, and base it on the history of Constitutional interpretation (general welfare, commerce clause, etc).

But that is not the Constitution, it is the interpretations.

It's odd, Joe also mis framed the original comment by BRI, and the original statement I made in response to it.

 

[mhaze]

(bold mine) mhaze, do you want to bet which is more likely?

Although G.E. is now concentrating on LED technologies, there are several other companies still working on incandescents that will meet the 2020 standards.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/can-incandescent-bulbs-be-made-efficient/

Meanwhile, researchers at Deposition Sciences in Santa Rosa, Calif., have found a way to increase the efficacy of an incandescent to nearly 40 lumens a watt by using reflective coatings that allow waste heat to be converted to visible light.​

Note that's 40 lumens per watt -- not quite at the 2020 standard of 45 lumens per watt but already pretty close.....

LOL...I think you mean emissive coatings, like phospers, or those used in LEDs, which absorb and re emit. It's not YOUR FAULT, just the dumb reporter that wrote the article so what else should I believe that he wrote?

Hmm...maybe THIS that you leave out <<Caught again, ignoring contrary evidence?>>

For all of this, light-emitting diode (LED) and compact-fluorescent products already on the market have stated efficiency ratings of 40 to more than 100 lumens per watt, making it difficult to predict how long incandescents will stay in the game.

Reflective does not convert IR to visible. Re emissive is always at lower wavelength.

If that was not the case, we could put reflectors around ordinary tungsten incadescents and convert all that wasted IR (except for that which I use for heat) into visible light.

 

[mhaze]

No misrepresentation? ..... It's enough to prove that the law does not constitute a ban on incandescents.....

Joe, I guess you got me on that one.

I can't refute the fact that the law constitutes a ban on incandescent EXCEPT FOR YOUR IMAGINARY INCANDESCENT BULB.

Yep, that's a hard argument to refute. You know, those logical type guys ... those smart people...? They call that "Refuting the irrefutable hypothesis."

Now why is this like shooting ducks in the bucket?

 

[Bri]

LOL...I think you mean emissive coatings, like phospers, or those used in LEDs, which absorb and re emit. It's not YOUR FAULT, just the dumb reporter that wrote the article so what else should I believe that he wrote?

Ummmm...no. Good try though. Some earlier versions of the coating are used with currently available incandescent bulbs. Wrong again, I'm afraid.

Hmm...maybe THIS that you leave out <<Caught again, ignoring contrary evidence?>>

For all of this, light-emitting diode (LED) and compact-fluorescent products already on the market have stated efficiency ratings of 40 to more than 100 lumens per watt, making it difficult to predict how long incandescents will stay in the game.

What do you think that's evidence of?

In fact, it's evidence that it's possible that an incandescent bulb will be developed that meets the 2020 standards (otherwise it wouldn't be "difficult to predict how long incandescents will stay in the game"). And if one does -- even after 2020 -- it won't be banned by the standards. Which means that you're simply inaccurate and misleading in calling the 2020 standards a ban on incandescent bulbs. The standards don't and never will (even after 2020) ban incandescent bulbs -- they will only ban incandescents that don't meet the minimum efficiency requirements.

I'm sure you just overlooked this question. If you don't mind answering please:

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

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

(bold mine) mhaze, do you want to bet which is more likely?....

Fusion is going to require some mining on the moon, and some technical advances. The problems are well understood and serious ongoing projects both basic research and applied engineering address them.

BUT ON THE MAGICAL LAMP:

You really need someone to weigh in at this point with the physics of converting low energy waste heat or IR into useful visible light, and the difficulties in that.

That is sort of a "holy grail" which would be a world changer if it was developed. Anywhere you had a temperature difference you could generate light.....

And of course, the ability to convert IR to VR would mean that IR could be converted to VR and re radiated to space, which would....

 

[Bri]

Here's an article on another possible approach to increasing the light emitted by incandescents:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090529121556.htm

The laser process creates a unique array of nano- and micro-scale structures on the surface of a regular tungsten filament—the tiny wire inside a light bulb—and theses structures make the tungsten become far more effective at radiating light.​

Mhaze, no need to comment on this -- just posting it in case anyone is interested in the possibility that incandescents might stick around after 2020. It has no bearing on our discussion, since even if there are no incandescents that comply with the standards in 2020, the standards will still not prevent someone from inventing, manufacturing, and selling one. Also, the standards still won't apply to reflector and specialty incandescent bulbs after 2020.

Which reminds me...

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

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Now why is this like shooting ducks in the bucket?

More like you ducking questions about the false claims you've made.

You have claimed that the law will ban the floodlights you are stockpiling. Are those floodlights not reflector lights?

As you know since I pointed it out very early in this thread, all reflector bulbs are exempt from the new energy efficiency standards.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Well? Which article and section, or amendment, of the Constitution grants you the right to use any light bulb you want?

It's actually in The Declaration of Independence,

You know, "light, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

Just kidding. Now, a question: What about lamps that use the bulb itself to hold the shade on? I have a couple of lamps where the shade has two loops of wire that clamp onto the light bulb itself. I don't give a rat's ass about light output, or light color, or energy consumption, I just want a bulb that fits my lamp. I've tried using the twisty flourescent bulbs in these lamps and they won't work. Do I have to ditch my lamps or will someone come up with a flourescent or LED bulb that's actually shaped like a light bulb? If they were just some generic lamps from Target I wouldn't have a problem getting rid of them, but they're both pretty cool lamps. Am I going to have to buy black market bulbs from mhaze, or what?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Now, a question: What about lamps that use the bulb itself to hold the shade on? I have a couple of lamps where the shade has two loops of wire that clamp onto the light bulb itself. I don't give a rat's ass about light output, or light color, or energy consumption, I just want a bulb that fits my lamp. I've tried using the twisty flourescent bulbs in these lamps and they won't work. Do I have to ditch my lamps or will someone come up with a flourescent or LED bulb that's actually shaped like a light bulb? If they were just some generic lamps from Target I wouldn't have a problem getting rid of them, but they're both pretty cool lamps. Am I going to have to buy black market bulbs from mhaze, or what?

As mentioned very early in the thread, there are already compliant incandescents on the market that are nearly the same shape as traditional lightbulbs, and should fit those kind of shades. [ETA: This was the bulb that haze wrongly claimed wasn't dimmable.]

Also, some of the LED bulbs come in the pear shape that should work with those kind of shades.

 

[Bri]

Do I have to ditch my lamps or will someone come up with a flourescent or LED bulb that's actually shaped like a light bulb?

To add to what Joe said, CFL's also come in that shape (the spiral tube is enclosed inside a regular bulb-shaped glass globe).

You should have no trouble finding what you seek at a major hardware store. But if you do, they're available on the Internet.

They also make "harp adapters" that you can use to modify some lamps: http://homelightingtoday.com/lamp-shade-adapters.php

Then there's this thing: http://www.magictoob.com/

Or you could just stockpile old incandescents!

-Bri