Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well it isn't, it's a halogen

The other one 404'd on me.

The link works for me, but it's a google products search link so there's probably a parameter or something in it specific to my platform. It's the same kind of shopping page for traditional GE 100w incandescent bulbs, but the word "incandescent" is nowhere on the page.

Maybe this one will work: http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=100w+light+bulbs

I don't think the change has reduced peak demand though. In fact there's still considerable growth in the generation business.

Considering that none of the energy efficiency standards on light bulb production (not sales, ownership or use) don't start phasing in until January of 2012, that's pretty understandable, isn't it?

And again, what I would hope for is a reduction only compared to what the demand would otherwise be. I wouldn't expect an absolute decrease in demand. The law really isn't far reaching (or authoritarian!) enough to have such a great effect on our total electricity use. Still, a few years from now, we should be using less energy for producing light than we otherwise would.

 

[Furcifer]

The link works for me, but it's a google products search link so there's probably a parameter or something in it specific to my platform. It's the same kind of shopping page for traditional GE 100w incandescent bulbs, but the word "incandescent" is nowhere on the page.

Maybe this one will work: http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=100w+light+bulbs

Surely you must realize this is a result of more recent developments? 5 years ago it would have just been halogen and incan, no overlap.

Considering that none of the energy efficiency standards on light bulb production (not sales, ownership or use) don't start phasing in until January of 2012, that's pretty understandable, isn't it?

And again, what I would hope for is a reduction only compared to what the demand would otherwise be. I wouldn't expect an absolute decrease in demand. The law really isn't far reaching (or authoritarian!) enough to have such a great effect on our total electricity use. Still, a few years from now, we should be using less energy for producing light than we otherwise would.

We'll see.

I can tell you this though, this Earth day thing, turning out the lights, I've been in the plant and watched the grid and it hasn't made any discernible difference (last year). You can't see any change on Earth Day. I've asked guys that were on shift the first time and there was some concern, but in the last 2 years at least there hasn't been any change in the demand. Something to think about.

 

[mhaze]

Oh, OK.

It's one of those illegal to sell OK to possess deals here in Ontario as far as I know. Kinda like fireworks. I guess Halogens are like snakes, still fireworks but not really fireworks

And since these guys now have to admit that the halogens ALSO are banned by the actual law's intent, fully achieved in 2020, this is a moot point. Earlier they thought it would be a debating point to group halogen and incandescent together, since halogen was technically a subcateogry of incandescent that survives the 2012 and 2014 bans.

But, darn it, I had to go and point out the actual law.

My experience, when people are down to arguing minor points of grammer, they've really lost the central argument.

 

[Bri]

Another example of the double speak. You know very well that 99% of people distinguish incandescent from halogens, just because it technically is one is nit picking.

It's not nitpicking. It's just not accurate. The fact that 99% of people don't know what an incandescent bulb is doesn't mean that a halogen isn't an incandescent bulb.

Even by your own admission, Joe's link is wrong! So even people selling them make the distinction.

I don't agree with their marketing, but sure, sometimes the people marketing them don't care about accuracy and want to distinguish their bulbs from old-style incandescents.

This is exactly what you are doing when trying to say this isn't a ban on 99% of the light bulbs used in the past 100 years.

Well, honestly I don't care what you call it as long as people understand the standards. But I suspect that your insistence on calling it a "ban" is because you know that if people fully understand the efficiency standards most of them won't really care that much. And you want to make sure that it sounds scarey, like the law is banning our beloved light bulbs that we used for hundreds of years for no reason whatsoever, leaving us completely in the dark.

If you just want a short description that uses the word "ban" I guess this is fairly accurate:

The efficiency standards for light bulbs ban some inefficient light bulbs.​

Seems pretty obvious though, which is why I prefer:

The standard phase in minimum efficiency requirements for light bulbs.​

It's brief and although it doesn't give all the details, it's not inaccurate or misleading.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

3body, they are arguing on a technicality, just like they are in arguing that this isn't a ban.

Nobody said it isn't a ban. Efficiency standards ban some inefficient light bulbs. But that doesn't say much.

It is NOT a ban on incandescent bulbs though. The efficiency standards are completely neutral about the types of technology. There are incandescent bulbs that comply with the standards. Some incandescent bulbs are exempt from the standards. If new types of more efficient incandescent bulbs are developed, they won't be banned.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I'm just saying it sounds a little disingenuous, I think people understand their car headlights aren't "banned" but their trusty 100W frosted is.

Look, I get what you're saying, but the standards are technology-neutral. They simply set minimum efficiency requirements without regard to the type of bulb. Yes, those old-style incandescent bulbs you're talking about are highly inefficient and will be phased out (like any other inefficient bulb that doesn't meet the standards and aren't exempt). Nobody is saying otherwise.

But incandescent bulbs are not being singled out, and nobody is knocking on your door to arrest you if you use any you might still own. And it's disingenuous to use language that implies otherwise.

Now if you feel like you should be allowed to choose for yourself if you want to use inefficient bulbs, that's a completely valid argument to make. But even if you feel that way, you shouldn't have to misinform people in order to convince them you're right.

ETA: I'm not accusing you personally of doing that. That was a generic "you."

-Bri

 

[Bri]

And since these guys now have to admit that the halogens ALSO are banned by the actual law's intent, fully achieved in 2020, this is a moot point. Earlier they thought it would be a debating point to group halogen and incandescent together, since halogen was technically a subcateogry of incandescent that survives the 2012 and 2014 bans.

But, darn it, I had to go and point out the actual law.

My experience, when people are down to arguing minor points of grammer, they've really lost the central argument.

We've already discussed this. Let's recap.

The efficiency standards are technology-neutral. They don't ban incandescent bulbs now, and they won't ban incandescent bulbs in 2020. They set minimum efficiency requirements for all technologies of light bulbs that will phase out inefficient bulbs over time. At the time the standards were signed into law by President Bush, there were no incandescent bulbs that complied. Halogen incandescents were developed that complied with the standards and they weren't banned. If anyone develops an incandescent after 2020 that complies, it also won't be banned. Furthermore, reflectors and other specialty bulbs are exempt -- including incandescents. Stores can sell what remains of their stock, and people can use whatever bulbs they buy in stores or have on hand.

Therefore, both of these statements are inaccurate and misleading:

The standards ban incandescent bulbs.

The standards will ban incandescent bulbs after 2020.​

I can only imagine why you prefer to be inaccurate and misleading rather than allowing people to make up their minds based on a complete and accurate understanding of the standards.

-Bri

 

[TheL8Elvis]

mhaze,

Aside from your contradictory posts:

1. Incadescnet refers to heating a filament wire. Above, you assert that halogen bulbs are incadescent. They are not. They are "halogen bulbs". That's what you link to, and those do not work on circuits with dimmers.

impossible that it does not when gaseous tungsten is involved, but at filament temps lower hence dim I think u are dealing with softer or some yellow. I will check later I have some halogens on dimmers.

The real question I have for you is:

Sure, since I've got an area with 6 high ceiling floodlights

Do you have 90-150 watt NON-REFLECTOR bulbs in those high ceiling floodlights ?

 

[mhaze]

....They don't ban incandescent bulbs now, and they won't ban incandescent bulbs in 2020. They set minimum efficiency requirements for all technologies of light bulbs that will phase out inefficient bulbs over time. At the time the standards were signed into law by President Bush, there were no incandescent bulbs that complied. Halogen incandescent were developed that complied with the standards and they weren't banned.....

Yes, they are part of the bulbs that will be banned as are all existing and known technology incandescent bulbs. Your references you claim support improvements in incandescent technology do not support improvements of 200% in efficiency. Not a one of them.

So you really are claiming that incandescent are not banned because of some MAGICAL MYSTERY BULB that in some fantasy world, will be developed against the laws of physics. You think the human made law is superior to the laws of physics. I'm quite sure you could make the Red Sea part with a law.

Let's recap....

Okay, let's recap. It's a ban.

Bri/Joe, Bulb Truthers:IS NOT!

mhaze: Is Too!

 

[johnny karate]

Okay, let's recap. It's a ban.

Bri/Joe:IS NOT!

mhaze: Is Too!

You forgot one.

Nonpartisan, unbiased fact-checking resource: IS NOT!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Surely you must realize this is a result of more recent developments?

Yes, that's what I just pointed out. I think you are talking of conventional usage from a while ago.


At any rate, if someone is claiming that the law bans incandescents, there talking about technical, legal language. It really should be accurate, or else people get the wrong idea.

I think someone here just recently said that however you define terms, the law will ban 99% of the lightbulbs that have been in use for a long time, but that's just not true. Think for a minute of how many lightbulbs fall into those exempt categories. ALL outdoor lights, all reflector lights, all high intensity lights, and so on.

It is most definitely not true that 99% of the lightbulbs that we've used for generations will be banned. Not included are streetlights, billboard lights, floodlights, any colored lights, neon sign lights, message board lights, stadium lights, tennis court lights, and so on. . . . These surely comprise more than a single percent of the lightbulbs we've been using for years and yet all of them are exempt from the energy efficiency standards.

So it's not just a matter of technicalities or semantics. People really do get the wrong idea when they hear that the law is a ban on incandescents.

ETA: Another bit of evidence that these false statements give people a truly wrong idea is haze's stockpiling of floodlight bulbs.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Okay, let's recap. It's a ban.

Bri/Joe, Bulb Truthers:IS NOT!

mhaze: Is Too!

While that may be an accurate description of the arguments you've made, it's a gross mischaracterization of what I've been saying.

And. . I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you have to invent fake quotes and put them into your opponent's mouth--especially when you act out both sides of the argument--it's a pretty good sign you're arguing against a straw man.

ETA: So those lightbulbs you're stockpiling--aren't they reflector bulbs? And will you not admit that the law is clear in exempting all reflector bulbs from the energy efficiency standards?

 

[mhaze]

I don't deny any of this. I'm just saying from an industry standpoint when you talk halogen you talk one thing and when you talk incandescent you talk another.
They're never lumped together in discussion. ....

right. But you are talking reality. That is somewhere other than this thread. This thread is about people that obsessively try to push their version of "efficient bulb" on everyone they encounter. Sort of like those guys on the corner that want to push religion.

It's a real serious business. Not to be taken lightly. Saving the Planet One Light Bulb at a Time. You know, Al Gore stuff.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Nobody said it isn't a ban. Efficiency standards ban some inefficient light bulbs. But that doesn't say much.

And I would even argue that "ban" isn't the most accurate word. I think "phase out" is the most accurate, since the law will not prohibit sales, ownership or use of the inefficient bulbs in question. . . ever.

They will phase them out of use by prohibiting production of them (gradually).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But you are talking reality.

Such as the reality as to whether or not you're stockpiling lightbulbs that will be exempt from the energy efficiency standards?

It's not a difficult question. Are they reflector floodlight bulbs?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I can tell you this though, this Earth day thing, turning out the lights, I've been in the plant and watched the grid and it hasn't made any discernible difference (last year). You can't see any change on Earth Day. I've asked guys that were on shift the first time and there was some concern, but in the last 2 years at least there hasn't been any change in the demand. Something to think about.

I'd agree with you that the new standards for regular lightbulbs won't have a tremendously huge effect. It will have some, and mostly it will light a fire (so to speak) under R & D of improved technology.

But that modest effect is good evidence that it's not a heavy handed or sweeping law wrt to light bulbs. That it's not authoritarian or draconian. The market clearly was headed away from traditional incandescents anyway eventually. So in the long run, this law will have zero effect. At most, it hurried things up a bit from the pace they were going.

I would contrast your comments here with what haze is saying:

This thread is about people that obsessively try to push their version of "efficient bulb" on everyone they encounter. Sort of like those guys on the corner that want to push religion.

Would you say that's at all an accurate description of what's going on in this thread? Or what the law in question is doing?

 

[This is The End]

And I would even argue that "ban" isn't the most accurate word. I think "phase out" is the most accurate, since the law will not prohibit sales, ownership or use of the inefficient bulbs in question. . . ever.

They will phase them out of use by prohibiting production of them (gradually).

Well, since Joe and Bri have clearly studied the law (not meant to be sarcastic...):

I'm wondering if they know if (after the "guidelines" take effect) it will be legal to sell the banned bulbs in any "private" settings. For instance (ranked from, I'm guessing, most to least likely): garage sales, yard sales, flea market stalls, farmers market stalls, estate auctions, ebay auctions.

I tried to think of anything else in my house that I wouldn't be allowed to sell in a yard sale, and I'm stumped.

ETA: I just noticed (and added with quote) Joe's statement that sales are not prohibited.

So what is stopping a big company like Wal-Mart (or a private eBay entrepreneur) from buying up a bazillion old style 100 watt bulbs and selling them for years?

 

[Furcifer]

Would you say that's at all an accurate description of what's going on in this thread? Or what the law in question is doing?

Well if that means it's more about being able to ban something than actually accomplishing something through the ban I'd say yes.

The ban seems marginal at best, compared to other "bans" I don't think it accomplishes as much as it needs to to legitimize the "ban". (fireworks,CAFE, speed limits, pellet guns things of that nature come to mind)

In this regard I think it's more symbolic, and I think that lends itself to religion.

There's also the way in which some people are using it as vindication for AGW, in the same way religious nutters use preparedness and planning as a "miracle". This is a ban on inefficiency plain and simple, it doesn't say anything about AGW. Dragging AGW into the conversation just makes it unnecessarily messy.

 

[Bri]

Yes, they are part of the bulbs that will be banned as are all existing and known technology incandescent bulbs. Your references you claim support improvements in incandescent technology do not support improvements of 200% in efficiency. Not a one of them.

mhaze, what about all those reflectors and specialty incandescent bulbs that aren't banned? You know, like the ones you're stockpiling?

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

Well if that means it's more about being able to ban something than actually accomplishing something through the ban I'd say yes.
......In this regard I think it's more symbolic, and I think that lends itself to religion.....

When the law was written in 2007, it really was about moving people from incandescent to CFL, because LED did not exist in any shape, form, or reasonable cost at that time. Neither were any of the disadvanges of CFL widely known at that time:

• The problems with mercury when they break
• operation at night or in cold conditions
• issues with vertical vs horizontal bulb orientation
• issues with poor color representation
• noodle bulb shape and size not being compatible with existing fixtures

CFL was sold as a bill of goods in what comprised marketing efforts by eco wackos. It wasn't what it was promised. It had significant defects. This distorted the normal process of the competitive market - Translated...a lot of people wasted what was to them, a lot of money, and were caused considerable frustration in an area of their life which previously, did not cause them any frustration.

Something which had been very simple was made very complicated. Before, they just bought a 25 cent light bulb and screwed it in. After, they bought a bulb, used it, found it didn't really put out enough power, went and bought another one, found that although brighter it didn't fit in the fixture, changed the fixture, then found the bulb burned out in a few months instead of several years as promised. Then they found special disposal methods were required. Many other examples of this sort of hassle and forced purchase of inferior products can be provided.

Let's say it one more time: Something that was very simple was made very complicated.

While Joe and Bri may argue on the minutae of whether the law constitutes a "ban", they cannot argue with the law's intent to control and shape consumer behavior. In short, they want to tell you and me what to do and how to do it. Because Authoritarian Liberal Controllers know better than you and I.

But of course they'd like voluntary compliance rather than forced compliance. That works better. So they have to present a front that it "Isn't Draconian", "Isn't a ban", and so forth.

I notice that Lowes has gone to stocking a variety of incandescent bulbs in 130 volt versions at this time. It appears that this is an end run around the entire law.