Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[Bri]

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.

Again, the definition of "efficient bulb" is specified in the standards that were passed with bi-partisan support and signed into law by President Bush. Light bulb efficiency is measured in lumens per watt, which is a standard used by the lighting industry. It is not my definition. It is not Joe's definition.

You may not agree with the law. There are plenty of valid arguments you can make in favor of your opinion. But you're not making them. Instead, you're hoping to misinform people in order to convince them. When you have to make your point using misinformation, you might want to rethink your point.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

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'm not positive, but I believe you can sell them. The law applies to newly manufactured and imported bulbs only.

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?

Probably availability, but I'm only guessing. I doubt any company stockpiles years worth of bulbs. Usually companies produce what they can sell in the fairly near future. This will particularly be the case with the bulbs in question since they know they're being phased out.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Probably availability, but I'm only guessing. I doubt any company stockpiles years worth of bulbs. Usually companies produce what they can sell in the fairly near future. This will particularly be the case with the bulbs in question since they know they're being phased out.

Funny he mentioned Walmart in particular, because their success is exactly because of their inventory control. They make money by NOT stockpiling anything.

At any rate, I think there's also plain old market forces which are working against the standard size and type of the traditional incandescents. With or without the EISA, its days were numbered.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

You could say that of pretty much ALL laws--that the intent is to shape behavior. And all laws dealing with commerce can be said to shape consumer behavior.

So what makes this one "Authoritarian"?

And please--give it up on the false claim that this was a "Liberal" law. From the Wiki entry on the EISA of 2007: "The revised Senate bill passed 86-8 on December 13. The House approved this final version 314-100 on December 18, and President Bush signed it the following day." The only thing that seemed to be controversial about the bill and hung up its passage was a tax package that would have removed *some* of the tax breaks for oil companies. Bush even said he'd veto the bill if it passed with that tax package. Agreement on the law without that measure, as you can see, was pretty broad.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You may not agree with the law. There are plenty of valid arguments you can make in favor of your opinion. But you're not making them. Instead, you're hoping to misinform people in order to convince them. When you have to make your point using misinformation, you might want to rethink your point.

This.

And by the way, they were indeed reflector bulbs that you're stockpiling, weren't they, haze?

You know one of the kinds of bulbs exempted from the new requirements.

 

[mhaze]

.... This is a ban on inefficiency plain and simple....

It's a ban on a poorly defined version of "inefficiency". Here's just one example. I have a bathroom fixture that was mean to use 3 designer incandescent bulbs of the clear type. I hate those bulbs and they are expensive. So I decided to try 3 of the CFL in the 3" round plastic exterior bulb.

Now, how did it work out? Very poorly. They take about 3 minutes to come to full brightness, so basically, either leave the switch on all the time, or the bathroom is going to be dim when you leave. This is a case where "instant on" is preferred. Now, I'm left with something considerably poorer quality than the previous regular 25 cent bulbs. I can toss these 3 into the regular trash can, and go get something else...having wasted $20, or just leave them on. S...U...C...K...E...R.....

So I just leave these bulbs on all the time. In practice do they use less electricity? Nope, they use more. A lot more, given that the bathroom light might be turned on 1-3% of any 24 hour period.

But wait, there's more. Not only does a tungsten bulb really last a long time if it's only switched on for 15 minutes a day....but a CFL's lifetime is degraded, up to 85%, by rapid on off cycling. Thus in this application, none of the cost benefit analysis which show the higher cost of the CFL to be offset by it's allegedly longer lifetime are valid.

Wasted money, poorer quality, need to replace and redo...where is the efficiency, exactly? Technically, there may be an efficiency in lumens per watt of the CFL vs the incandescent previously used. But in practice, given the human factors, the value of our time, and the actual investments in the bulbs, the CFL has proven in this application to be not just inefficient, but unworkable.

That's 100% INEFFICIENT.

And that's because some liberal authoritarian controllers, such as those on this thread, think they know better than you and I, and want to tell us what to do with our lives.

PS: As previously noted....Lowes is giving the middle finger up gesture to these types of people and to their law, having dealt with consumer demand and complaints on the issue and likely having better things to do.

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.

The free market wins another one.

 

[Noztradamus]

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.

Incandescents have been banned in Australia for 18 months now and the attitude change on me has been zero. When the laws went into place, I already had CFLs in 4 rooms. Still have them in the same 4 rooms. The legacy incandescents in other rooms are still there, haven't needed to repalce them. Have had to replace all the CFLs because they burnt out. Not complaining, high use areas and had CFLs because of that.

Simple economics 75w incandescent $1, electricty to run for 1000hrs $15 vs 75w CFL $3, electricity to run for 1000hrs $3. I don't need a LAW to see the advantage, but I really would like to buy simple incandescents to replace thoses globes have lasted the last 20 years - those areas don't need expensive high tech lights.

And those "halogen incandesents"? To get the same light to a 1000hr 75W incandescent for $16: 60W halogen $3, 1000hrs electricity $12 =$15

One steenkin dollar! I mean for $10 I'll buy a complicated hazardous waste light and, when burnt out, chuck it into the trash with only a mild fleeting pang of guilt. But for a dollar? My integrity can't be bought that cheaply.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

So there are only two categories of regulation: strictly voluntary and authoritarian? No shades of grey in between?
[ETA: What a stark world you live in! Maybe it just seems that way because of those indoor floodlights! BTW, they are reflector light bulbs, aren't they?]

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.

Nope. The EISA defines the bulb as falling under the standards if it "is capable of being operated at a voltage range at least partially within 110 and 130 volts." So it doesn't even matter if it's rated 131v as long as it can be used in a normal 120v range.

So the bulbs you are speaking of, as long as they're standard size, brightness, color, etc. will be subject to the new energy efficiency standards. If the presence of these bulbs on the shelf were intended as an end run around the law (and I doubt they were), that effort will fail.

In fact, I think it's that people use 130v bulbs in normal fixtures to get extra longevity.

 

[mhaze]

....Nope. The EISA defines the bulb as falling under the standards if it "is capable of being operated at a voltage range at least partially within 110 and 130 volts." So it doesn't even matter if it's rated 131v as long as it can be used in a normal 120v range.....

These WERE what was called "rugged service" industrial bulbs. We used to order them through Grainger and electrical suppliers, because they were not in regular stores for consumers. Now they are simply selling them TO CONSUMERS. And I'm sure you will realize that a 130 volt bulb produces less VR at 120v usage, than the 120v bulb you banned, thus being "less efficient".

The free market just beat you and your simple minded plans, Joe.

And by the way, this may be of interest. Jevons Paradox will not just go away because it is evidence contrary to your belief patterns. I'd like to see you, Joe, show some actual understanding of this issue and it's ramifications. Why? Not because it defeats some of your arguments. But because it's just plain interesting as an insight into human behavior.

Through generous subsidies, Sweden aggressively pushed its citizens to trade in their old cars for energy-efficient replacements (hybrids, clean diesel vehicles, cars that run on ethanol). Sweden has been so successful in this initiative that it leads the world in per-capita sales of "green" cars. To everyone's surprise, however, greenhouse gas emissions from Sweden's transportation sector are up.

But perhaps we should not be so surprised. What do you expect when you put people in cars they feel good (or at least less guilty) about driving, which are also cheap to buy and run? Naturally, they drive them more. So much more, in fact, that they obliterate energy gains made by increased fuel efficiency.
​

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

These WERE what was called "rugged service" industrial bulbs. We used to order them through Grainger and electrical suppliers, because they were not in regular stores for consumers. Now they are simply selling them TO CONSUMERS. And I'm sure you will realize that a 130 volt bulb produces less VR at 120v usage, than the 120v bulb you banned, thus being "less efficient".

Rough service bulbs are one of the categories excluded from the standards.

And what you say about the efficiency doesn't change the fact that you can't end-run the law by making an otherwise inefficient bulb in 130v, which is what you claimed. If these bulbs aren't otherwise excluded from the standards (being a rough service bulb, for example), then they will be subject to the guidelines.

ETA: FWIW, if you're trying to argue that there is a successful end-run around the law, wouldn't that suggest that the law wasn't broad enough rather than support your claim that it's authoritarian? Noting that attempts to end-run the law (you've mentioned 2 so far) fail, does support that the law was well-written. Remember that "legalese"? That's partly why laws have to be written precisely and with a lot of technical language, to avoid leaving loopholes.

So. . .those bulbs you're stockpiling--they were reflector bulbs, right? Why won't you answer?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Haze, please stop claiming that this is somehow my personal law. You have repeatedly made claims that it's my definition and most recently that I personally have banned some kind of lightbulbs.

I realize you've dug in your heels and are arguing an untenable position with many of the claims you've made. But that's no reason to try to make false claims about me personally.

The EISA was passed by Congress and signed by Bush. I didn't write it. I didn't even argue in favor of its passage. One of the senators I voted for (Claire McCaskill-D) actually voted against it, though she voted in favor of the tax package I mentioned earlier (trying to take away some of the oil company tax breaks).

ETA: And before you claim the business about you stockpiling floodlight bulbs is personalizing the argument, I would remind you that you offered your personal behavior as evidence that the law is a ban on incandescents. Of course, since it turns out you're stockpiling bulbs that are exempt from energy efficiency standards, you'd just as soon avoid that issue.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And by the way, this may be of interest. Jevons Paradox will not just go away because it is evidence contrary to your belief patterns. I'd like to see you, Joe, show some actual understanding of this issue and it's [sic] ramifications.

Does any of this support your claim that the law is a ban on incandescents?

I've consistently said that reasonable minds can disagree on whether or not this law is the best way to resolve wasteful energy use.

What I've been arguing against are your false claims about what the law actually calls for--your misinformation and mischaracterizations of the law.

To the Jevon's Paradox point, I would point out that the small increments in fuel efficiency which are easily swamped by increased use (and increased population and economic growth) aren't very similar to the jump in efficiency comparing traditional incandescent bulbs to CFLs. Also, most kinds of fuel usage isn't comparable to household lighting. I don't think people's habits for turning on and off lights CAN change a lot. (I've got a porch light I leave on 24/7. When I replaced the old bulb--an orange bug light that would be exempt from the standards--with an orange CFL, I can't possibly leave it on any more hours.) Unlike, for example, driving. Unless you drive a car non-stop, you can always drive more when you think you're getting better gas mileage.
[ETA: I haven't worked out the math, but I suspect with LED bulbs, one could leave any light on all the time and still not use MORE electricity than he or she would have used with incandescent bulbs that are turned off some of the time in normal use patterns.]

But I agree that the law isn't likely to have a very noticeable effect. And again, doesn't that argue that it's not really such an authoritarian law after all?

Don't you see a difference between a law whose intention is to cut down on our energy consumption and hopefully leave the world a little better off than we otherwise would and laws enacted by totalitarian regimes? Or are they all in just the one category "authoritarian"? If so, is there any federal regulation that you don't consider to be authoritarian?

 

[mhaze]

....Don't you see a difference between a law whose intention is to cut down on our energy consumption and hopefully leave the world a little better off than we otherwise would and laws enacted by totalitarian regimes? Or are they all in just the one category "authoritarian"? If so, is there any federal regulation that you don't consider to be authoritarian?

I think what you may be missing in comments from "your opponents" in this discussion is that we see the law as ridiculous and having zero or detrimental actual effects on energy consumption, thus leaving it with no real world effects other than to make our world more authoritarian, that being an effect that you support, whether intentionally or unintentionally is quite irrelevant, because that is the only EFFECT of your thoughts and actions.

.........I don't think people's habits for turning on and off lights CAN change a lot. (I've got a porch light I leave on 24/7. When I replaced the old bulb--an orange bug light that would be exempt from the standards--with an orange CFL, I can't possibly leave it on any more hours.) Unlike, for example, driving. Unless you drive a car non-stop, you can always drive more when you think you're getting better gas mileage.....

And there will be MORE CARS. I've already given an example - the bathroom light - where CFL in practice has resulted in more energy use and less efficiency than the incadescent. Many other examples are easy to produce.

.........[ETA: I haven't worked out the math, but I suspect with LED bulbs, one could leave any light on all the time and still not use MORE electricity than he or she would have used with incandescent bulbs that are turned off some of the time in normal use patterns.

Yes, you can. Because LED is a radically different technology and new markets open up. See pictures of downtown Toyko? Every city in the world can look like that with LED lighting. A sizable fraction of all buildings sides' facing major streets can become virtually maintenance free billboards, regular instead of high end yuppie subdivisions may all trend toward full night time landscape lighting, many streets that were dark become bright.

It's a bit like the argument of a few years ago that "The market for CAT scanners was extremely limited, one per major city". That was actually believed. Two decades later, we have boatloads of CAT scanners in big and small cities used for things that were literally unthinkable when CAT scanners were introduced.

 

[mhaze]

Incandescents have been banned in Australia for 18 months now and the attitude change on me has been zero. When the laws went into place, I already had CFLs in 4 rooms. Still have them in the same 4 rooms. The legacy incandescents in other rooms are still there, haven't needed to repalce them. Have had to replace all the CFLs because they burnt out. Not complaining, high use areas and had CFLs because of that.

Simple economics 75w incandescent $1, electricty to run for 1000hrs $15 vs 75w CFL $3, electricity to run for 1000hrs $3. I don't need a LAW to see the advantage, but I really would like to buy simple incandescents to replace thoses globes have lasted the last 20 years - those areas don't need expensive high tech lights.

And those "halogen incandesents"? To get the same light to a 1000hr 75W incandescent for $16: 60W halogen $3, 1000hrs electricity $12 =$15

One steenkin dollar! I mean for $10 I'll buy a complicated hazardous waste light and, when burnt out, chuck it into the trash with only a mild fleeting pang of guilt. But for a dollar? My integrity can't be bought that cheaply.

Good story. I have relatives in Brisbane, and talked with them on my last visit about the water collection tank they all have...seems like decent thing, but didn't think about the issue of CFL. Noticed them everywhere, though. Some in fixtures they didn't look right or work right in, come to think of it.

But (to play devils advocate here for a moment) although this light bulb law we agree is b.s., what about the law on water collection systems?

Would the storage tanks be in common use if there was no law?

Is that overall, a social good or bad?

My GUESS is that since everyone knows water is scarce down under, there isn't any real objection to this.

Right or wrong?

 

[mhaze]

.....So. . .those bulbs you're stockpiling--they were reflector bulbs, right? Why won't you answer?

I'd have to go dig that box out and look at the inventory to answer that. Kind of a hassle. I did not go seeking to buy "reflector bulbs", that's part of the answer. Some flood and spot lights are reflectors, some are not. Will some bulb excluded by the language of the law possibly work for this application, and does that mean that a product exists that could be used which is not banned? Yes.

But, as I mentioned early in this thread when you first tried to put the microscope on what I've stockpiled, none of that matters. This is really simple stuff.

A. Bulb I use vanishes from store shelves, lots of CFL appear on shelves.
B. Buy and stockpile bulb from internet.
C. Next problem.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'd have to go dig that box out and look at the inventory to answer that. Kind of a hassle. I did not go seeking to buy "reflector bulbs", that's part of the answer.

I'm not sure what that even means. So they ARE reflector bulbs, right? That's what you're stockpiling? And you did it, no doubt, because you were ignorant of the fact that those bulbs are exempt from the energy efficiency standards--primarily because you wrongly thought the law was a ban on incandescents.

Some flood and spot lights are reflectors, some are not.

That may or may not be true [ETA: and I very much doubt it is, at least for traditional incandescent flood and spot lights], but I don't think any flood or spot lights are subject to the energy efficiency guidelines.

A. Bulb I use vanishes from store shelves, lots of CFL appear on shelves.
B. Buy and stockpile bulb from internet.
C. Next problem.

You're ignoring one point: you actually submitted your stockpiling these bulbs as evidence that the law is a ban on incandescents. So the fact that the bulbs you're stockpiling aren't subject to the energy efficiency guidelines really blows up that argument, doesn't it?

ETA: Also there is the problem that you took a certain type of bulb disappearing from the shelves of your Home Depot as proof positive that those bulbs were banned. You even said that the reason for them disappearing was this law. I pointed out the flaw in this reasoning a while ago. You'll find a complete absence of Polaroid Land cameras on store shelves. Does that mean they were banned? Or perhaps it just means better technology came along and made them obsolete.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Funny many if not all of the objections to CFL bulbs were used when we switched over from gas light to electric light.

They're not the right color. They're too expensive. They burn out too quickly (or simply, they burn out and need replacing). They don't fit in my current fixtures--and indeed required actually wiring the house!

At any rate, I suppose for people who really don't like CFLs it's a good thing that the EISA doesn't do anything to force them to buy CFL bulbs!

Part of what got me thinking of this was this article from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/magazine/bulb-in-bulb-out.html?ref=science
It's a pretty good article, but I'm especially talking about the bit on the reaction to the advent of electric lights:

When the inventor lighted the lamp, it glowed orange, “like the mellow sunset of an Italian autumn,” a contemporary newspaper said.

Almost immediately, though, there were complaints. Some detractors saw electric light as unnatural and reddish, lacking the comforting attributes of a gas flame. But with further refinements — the cardboard filament was replaced by bamboo, and later tungsten — quality improved. At first, bulbs were fairly expensive: in 1891, one went for 44 cents, more than $10 when adjusted for inflation. But Edison accurately predicted that costs would plummet as electricity vanquished all competing technologies.

 

[mhaze]

I'm not sure what that even means. So they ARE reflector bulbs, right?.....

BWHAHAHAHAHA!

What, you took the bait? Think it over....bait...line....fishing pole....someone gonna reel you in next!

No, seriously,

I'd have to go pull the boxes out, sort through hundreds of bulbs, make an inventory, figure out which were in that series of purchases. There could be some reflector bulbs in there. I know for a fact a lot are not.

Anyway, I have to remind you. Your selective quoting on this won't stand up to examination. I thoroughly explained this issue early in the thread. And I summarized it nicely just a moment ago.

But on another subject dear to your heart. Your indignation at wrong-from-Joes-point-of-view-regarding-the-ban. I'm going to change my position.

From:

They banned 99% of incandescent bulbs due to some wacko greenie scheme to save the planet.

To:

They tried to ban 99% of incandescent bulbs, but the free market wiggled its way around the ban by putting "rough service" incandescent bulbs out for consumer purchase. While these had previously been a product from Grainger or electrical supply houses, they started appearing in many styles and shapes in Lowes and Home Depot. And the wacko authoritarian controller greenies lost yet again. And the planet laughed at the greenies.

So...

Now are you happy?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

They tried to ban 99% of incandescent bulbs, but the free market wiggled its way around the ban by putting "rough service" incandescent bulbs out for consumer purchase. While these had previously been a product from Grainger or electrical supply houses, they started appearing in many styles and shapes in Lowes and Home Depot. And the wacko authoritarian controller greenies lost yet again.[/I] And the planet laughed at the greenies.

What evidence is there for your claim that the law's intent was other than what it accomplished? The law intended to exclude from the standards rough service bulbs. And they succeeded in doing that. The fact that you think they're going to replace standard inefficient traditional incandescents that don't fall under any of the exclusions is just another of your delusions.

Just like your reasoning that the lack of standard incandescent floodlights on the shelves at Home Depot was proof that those lights were "banned", leading you to start stockpiling them ignorant of the fact that they are exempt from the energy efficiency standards.

 

[mhaze]

What evidence is there for your claim that the law's intent was other than what it accomplished? The law intended to exclude from the standards rough service bulbs. And they succeeded in doing that. The fact that you think they're going to replace standard inefficient traditional incandescents that don't fall under any of the exclusions is just another of your delusions.....

No, Joe. I don't have any delusions.

They are there on the racks in the store for consumer purchase. Rather, why do you think people would not continue to buy incandescent bulbs, it they were on the shelf ("rough service") and next to them were CFLs?

The consumer decides then. Hey, what do I care, some people might buy your Al Gore approved CFLs. Me, I've got about a dozen in the closet that I took down due to demonstratably inferior performance so I'm not going to listen to the propaganda about them.