CFL's not a bright idea

[Anders Hoveland]

Several countries in the world are currently in the process of making ordinary incandescent light bulbs illegal. The USA, Australia, and the UK, have all already had laws come into effect that limit the manufacture or sale of certain wattages of the bulbs. Argentina has already made the sale of incandescent bulbs illegal. In the USA, manufacture of the 100 and 70 watt bulbs are already illegal, and manufacture of both the 60 and 40 watts will, under the current law, be also be illegal in 2014.

 

 

 

The whole intention of these laws are to reduce the consumption of energy. But does this really make sense? There are, for example, other ways to reduce energy consumption, such as just taxing electricity.

 

The manufacture of the bulb itself consumes energy. It takes several times as much energy to produce a compact fluorescent bulb as an incandescent bulb. Furthermore, because of the use of potentially toxic mercury in fluorescent bulbs and the stringent environmental regulations, manufacturers in the USA are unnable to compete with Chinese manufacturers. So whereas around half the old incandescent bulbs are still produced in the USA, all of the new compact fluorescent lights are produced in China. The energy consumption for manufacturing in China is much more wasteful and less efficient than in the USA. The fact that the Chinese government subsidizes the prices of electric power does not help. 68.7% of the electric power in China is produced from coal power plants, which are often much less efficient more polluting than those in the USA. Indeed, China is the largest consumer of coal in the world. The coal power plants in China use bituminous coal which, while cheaper than other grades of coal, also has a much higher sulfur content leading to acid rain.

 

The mere production of the new compact fluorescent bulbs consumes 1.7 kiloWatts of power per bulb. This is not electric power from the USA, but rather electric power from China that results in much more pollution and carbon dioxide emissions. So the new laws are not only resulting in more pollution, but also the loss of more American jobs.

 

Then there is cost. A typical compact fluorescent bulb costs three times as much as an incandescent bulb. While suppossedly fluorescent bulbs can last 8 times longer than the old incandescent bulbs, in practice most of the compact fluorescent bulbs coming from China are of inferior quality, and it is my experience that they only tend to last between 1.5 to 3 times as long. Their rated lifespans will be reduced even more if put on a dimmer switch. If you go to the store and find that compact fluorescent bulbs are the same price as the old incandescent bulbs, it is not because they are actually cheaper. Rather, the taxpayers are indirectly subsidizing the difference of cost through grants to local utility companies. Compact fluorescent bulbs also are intended to be specially disposed of, because of their mercury content. Taking the trouble to properly recycle the bulbs and prevent the glass from breaking also adds cost, trouble, and indirectly consumes more energy.

 

Now to bring up the subject of energy efficiency. It is widely claimed that compact fluorescent bulbs use 70% less energy than ordinary incandescent bulbs. But this is only in terms of light output. It actuality, incandescent bulbs are essentially 100% efficient. It is just that most of the energy output is in the form of heat rather than light. Because of geographic distribution, most American households use more energy heating their homes than air conditioning. So it makes little sense to be using fluorescent lighting for most of these households. Why go to the trouble of trying to avoid electric power from being converted to heat in the lighting while simultaneously separately consuming electric power to generate heat? It makes no sense. Even in warmer locations, lights are typically used most in the night time, when it also happens to be colder. Even most homes in the "sun belt" have their heaters turned on at night in the winter. So compact fluroescent bulbs, in many situations, will not reduce the consumption of energy. They will produce less heat, and people will just turn up the setting on their heaters to compensate.

 

 

just found this from a pro-CFL cite:

Myth: CFLs don't save money because my heating system has to work harder to produce the lost heat I would have received from my regular incandescent.

Reality: The heat lost when switching from an incandescent to a CFL has a negligible effect on your heating system.The heat that emanates from incandescent bulbs tends to hang up near the ceiling, and has little effect on your thermostat.

What a lame defense! Looks like they are really trying hard to counter the anti-CFL movement. Even if the effect truely is "negligible", one could logically argue that the potential energy saving themselves from CFL are also "negligible" compared to the energy consumption of the heating system. In any case, this does nothing to adress the original argument itself: that it is pointless to try to prevent electric power from being converted to heat while one is also using energy to heat the home at the same time. I suppose an argument could be made if only using a wood burning fireplace to heat the home (biofuel), but how many commonly people do that? All heat tends to rise upward toward the ceilling. A heating system typically has a fan that pushes the air around. This movement of air will also push around the air towards the ceilling. And if the air near the ceilling is already warm, it will just prevent more of the warm air from the heater from also similarly rising and being "wasted".

 

 

[studiot]

Well I have commenced replacing incandescent light sources with LEDs.

 

Unfortunately these are also largely made in the Far East.

[Anders Hoveland]

http://www.huffingto...s_n_895133.html

 

http://articles.lati...-bulbs-20110713

 

The USA has already passed legislation that is already in the process of making the sale or manufacture of normal incandescent lightbulbs illegal. Several congressmen attempted to overturn the ban, but failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority.

 

As of this time, both 100 Watt and 70 Watt incandescent bulbs have dissappeared from the shelves in American stores. The 45 Watt bulb will also be banned in a few years.

 

 

Good incandescent lightbulbs that have a long history of success

 

This is completely ridiculous, the government telling people what products they are not allowed to use. There is nothing wrong with incandescent bulbs. The government should not have any right to force people to use a different product just because they want to force people to use less energy! Someone who is careful to turn off their incandescent lights when they are not in the room is still using less energy than someone with "energy-saving" lights who leaves all the lights in their house on. What is next, is the government going to force Americans to install motion detectors to automatically turn off lights when no one is in the room?

 

I absolutely HATE fluorescent lights that the government is trying to push on everyone. The light has an eery tint, and it is more difficult for me to concentrate because there is actually high frequency flickering, although most people are unable to consciously discern this. And of course, some people with pets or small children are concerned about the mercury vapor that could be released if the lightbulb breaks (and it typically does break when put in the trash, realistically not many people are going to properly dispose of these new bulbs).

 

The only alternative, LED lighting, is even more efficient than fluorescent, but is unfortunately ridiculously expensive (60 dollars for a bulb that would match the light output of a 75 Watt incandescent bulb).

 

I imagine this lightbulb ban could spawn a thriving black market in the USA. Perhaps we will even see violence associated with organised light bulb crime!

 

The argument about saving energy is not a particularly good one. Household lighting only composes a very small fraction of the total energy consumed. In a typical household, normal incandescent lighting consumes only 15% of the home's electric power use. In fact, home heating consumes around HALF of a typical household's electricity use. Most of the American population lives in in the north half of the country, where the climate tends to be cooler. For a house with its heater on, "energy saving" CF bulbs will NOT actually save any energy. All types of lighting are actually 100% "efficient", it is just a matter of how much energy is converted into light and how much into heat. Forcing households in Minnessota or New York to convert to fluorescent bulbs is completely senseless.

 

I think the liberal environmental mantra says it all: "Live more simply so that all may live". If the impact of my using incandescent bulbs is too intolerable on the environment, I say perhaps there are just TOO MANY PEOPLE on the earth. These environmentalists should start focusing on population control instead of the regulation invassion on my home.

 

 

http://freedomlightb...ight-bulbs.html

 

a particular rundown of why the society energy savings are not there

http://ceolas.net/#li171x

 

 

video:

http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded

 

Here are the relevent excerpts from the abominable law:

 

(ii) INTERMEDIATE BASE INCANDESCENT LAMPS.—

An intermediate base incandescent lamp shall not

exceed 40 rated watts.

 

(v) BACKSTOP REQUIREMENT.—

[. . . ]

if the final rule does not

produce savings that are greater than or equal to the

savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45

lumens per watt, effective beginning January 1, 2020,

the Secretary shall prohibit the sale of any general

service lamp that does not meet a minimum efficacy

standard of 45 lumens per watt.

 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Title III: Energy Savings Though Improved Standards for Appliance and Lighting,

B. Lighting Energy Efficiency

I have tried to read the whole Act, but the wording is so obtuse, and the law ridiculously complex. I believe these two excerpts are the primary references affecting normal incandescent light bulbs.

 

 

video:

http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded

 

Admittingly, there is plenty of very misleading information being thrown out by both sides. Unfortunately that Energy Independence and Security Act actually allocated funding for public educating about "energy saving". Essentially the taxpayer is subsidizing millions of dollars in propaganda in favor of CFL's. Even on the official government website there were several blatent lies about CFL's.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Anders Hoveland

[studiot]

Did you not see my post or do you not want to hold a discussion?

[swansont]

Incandescent bulbs have not been banned in the US, it's just that the ones that can now be sold must meet efficiency standards. The "normal" ones, i.e. based on ~100 year-old technology, have an efficiency of a few percent. Basically they are heaters with the side-effect of producing some visible light. Efficiency standards have been implemented for a variety of appliances and other consumer goods. It's not like light bulbs are being singled out.

 

Now it's true that the energy savings with regard to heating is zero. Heating is generally very efficient because the waste product of the thermodynamic process is the actual product. It's when you use air conditioning — and you do use it even in northern climates like New York — that the savings come in. Cooling can't be nearly as close to 100% efficient as heating. But because you aren't heating as much you save that energy, and you save the energy you'd need to remove that excess heat, so you more than double the savings. It's more like tripling.

 

 

The mere production of the new compact fluorescent bulbs consumes 1.7 kiloWatts of power per bulb.

 

This is a nonsensical statement.

 

The only alternative, LED lighting, is even more efficient than fluorescent, but is unfortunately ridiculously expensive (60 dollars for a bulb that would match the light output of a 75 Watt incandescent bulb).

 

This is wrong, twofold. The LED bulbs are cheaper, and it's not the only alternative. A year ago the LED bulb you describe was available for under $40.

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20081410-54/philips-75-watt-led-for-sale-for-$39.97/

 

You can get high-efficiency incandescent bulbs.

 

http://www.nrdc.org/energy/lightbulbs/

[Anders Hoveland]

Incandescent bulbs have not been banned in the US, it's just that the ones that can now be sold must meet efficiency standards.

 

You can get high-efficiency incandescent bulbs.

http://www.nrdc.org/energy/lightbulbs/

 

These are both essentially LIES !!!

 

Incandescent bulbs are already in the process of becoming banned. The law, already passed, will demand regular fixture light bulbs must meet at least 45 lumens per Watt. It is practically impossible for incandescent, even halogen hulbs to meet this. A quartz halogen bulb (high-efficiency incandescent) typically produces 24 lumens per Watt, while even the high temperature halogen bulbs (which are not commonly available) only reach 35 lumens per Watt. So regular incandescent bulbs are essentially being banned.

 

If you do not believe me, go to your store and try to find any 100 Watt normal incandescent light for sale. The 70 Watt incandescent bulbs are already dissappearing from the shelves, and soon the 45 Watt ones will be banned also.

 

I am tired of people falsely claiming the bulbs will not be banned. The exact language of the law is extremely complicated and misleading, and it does not specifically mention that incandescents will be banned, but that is the effect of the law. Now whether the federal government actually has the authority to regulate lighting efficiency standards is a different matter, it is possible the Supreme Court may restrict the enforcement of the law if it feels the federal government is overstretching the authority granted to it through the commerce clause in the Constitution. But most stores and factories are not going to want to risk legal trouble.

 

This is a nonsensical statement.

Correct, my mistake. Perhaps the figure is 1.7 kiloJoules ? That would be the equivalent of 1000 hours of use.

Manufacturers usually claim that their CFL's have a lifetime of 5000 hours, but this is often a lie. Many of the cheaper CFL's have a lifetimes as low has 2500 hours. I am surprised there has not been any class action lawsuits against these companies yet. Many of these companies are using inferior electronic parts that cause the bulb to fail early, not just because it is cheaper, but also because they can sell more bulbs that way. Remember, all these bulbs are made in Chinese factories, and we all know Chinese companies have much lower ethical standards.

 

One source I found stated that producing a compact fluorescent bulb consumes about five times as much energy as it takes to make an incandescent bulb.

 

Here is one comment made by James Rhyner at St. Cloud University:

"I have been trying CFL's for several years and have yet to have one that lasts longer than an incandescent bulb. Again the politicians are trying to run our lives. As another writer mentions, the costs of producing and disposing of the CFL's are probably much greater than the operating and disposal costs of incandescents. Of course no one wants to analyze that as the politicians will lose their kick backs from the Chinese manufacturers (I despise congress and don't trust them)"

(December 15, 2011)

 

"I have a combination of incandescent and CFL bulbs. ... My home was built in 1999, and all the bulbs in it are 60-watt bulbs. Just in the last year they started to burn out. 11 years for an incandescent bult is pretty darn good. I have replaced some of these with CFL's and NONE of them have lasted more than 3 years."

(Darryl Buss, comment left on Popular Mechanics website)

 

 

Exaggerated lifespan

 

Real-world reports from the home front show that the claimed extended lifespan of CFLs is often greatly exaggerated. There is ample data indicating that the frequent switching on and off of CFLs greatly shortens their life. A study by H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and co-author Amanda Berg concludes:

“Unfortunately, except under a fairly narrow range of circumstances, CFLs are less efficient than advertised. Manufacturers claim the average life span of a CFL bulb is 10,000 hours. However, in many applications the life and energy savings of a CFL are significantly lower. Applications in which lighting is used only briefly (such as closets, bathrooms, motion detectors and so forth) will cause CFL bulbs to burn out as quickly as regular incandescent bulbs . . . When initially switched on, CFLs may provide as little as 50 percent to 80 percent of their rated light output and can take up to three minutes to reach full brightness.”

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba637/

 

 

Edited June 14, 2012 by Anders Hoveland

[studiot]

These are both essentially LIES !!!

 

When someone else quotes a (possibly) inaccurate figure they are lies.

 

Correct, my mistake.

 

When you quote one it is a mere human mistake.

 

That approach will not win friends an influence people.

 

 

Furthermore you have made at least one more 'mistake'

 

The only alternative, LED lighting, is even more efficient than fluorescent, but is unfortunately ridiculously expensive (60 dollars for a bulb that would match the light output of a 75 Watt incandescent bulb).

 

 

LED, flourescent and incandescent are not the only forms of lighting.

 

The shame is that I actually agree that choice should be maintained in the type of lightsource available.

Edited June 14, 2012 by studiot

[swansont]

These are both essentially LIES !!!

 

Incandescent bulbs are already in the process of becoming banned. The law, already passed, will demand regular fixture light bulbs must meet at least 45 lumens per Watt. It is practically impossible for incandescent, even halogen hulbs to meet this. A quartz halogen bulb (high-efficiency incandescent) typically produces 24 lumens per Watt, while even the high temperature halogen bulbs (which are not commonly available) only reach 35 lumens per Watt. So regular incandescent bulbs are essentially being banned.

 

I can only assume you are using a definition of essentially that means "not, but I don't have an actual, factual counterargument". You are shifting the goalposts from "incandescents" to "regular incandescents" and back when it suits you. Incandescent bulbs are not being banned. This is not a lie.

 

 

If you do not believe me, go to your store and try to find any 100 Watt normal incandescent light for sale. The 70 Watt incandescent bulbs are already dissappearing from the shelves, and soon the 45 Watt ones will be banned also.

 

I wasn't talking about the "normal" ones, which are very inefficient. See the above objection to moving the goalposts.

 

I am tired of people falsely claiming the bulbs will not be banned. The exact language of the law is extremely complicated and misleading, and it does not specifically mention that incandescents will be banned, but that is the effect of the law. Now whether the federal government actually has the authority to regulate lighting efficiency standards is a different matter, it is possible the Supreme Court may restrict the enforcement of the law if it feels the federal government is overstretching the authority granted to it through the commerce clause in the Constitution. But most stores and factories are not going to want to risk legal trouble.

 

Bold emphasis added. So you admit, it does not ban incandescent bulbs. I'm tired of people falsely claiming that the law does this.

 

Correct, my mistake. Perhaps the figure is 1.7 kiloJoules ? That would be the equivalent of 1000 hours of use.

Manufacturers usually claim that their CFL's have a lifetime of 5000 hours, but this is often a lie. Many of the cheaper CFL's have a lifetimes as low has 2500 hours. I am surprised there has not been any class action lawsuits against these companies yet. Many of these companies are using inferior electronic parts that cause the bulb to fail early, not just because it is cheaper, but also because they can sell more bulbs that way. Remember, all these bulbs are made in Chinese factories, and we all know Chinese companies have much lower ethical standards.

 

One source I found stated that producing a compact fluorescent bulb consumes about five times as much energy as it takes to make an incandescent bulb.

 

Oooh, five times. That's a lot. But that's per bulb, and since this is not a 1-for-1 replacement, that's not exactly an honest comparison.

 

A typical CFL lasts ~5x longer than a typical traditional incandescent (numbers vary somewhat depending on the source; some put it at more than 10), so the actual energy to produce a set amount of lighting is about the same. 1/5 x 5 = 1. So production energy is a wash, and you're left with the lower operating costs. Which, BTW, are a lot more than the cost of the bulb. 1000 hours for a 100W bulb is 100 kWh. At $0.10 per kWh, that's $10 to operate a traditional bulb. Much, much more than the cost of the bulb.

 

Here is one comment made by James Rhyner at St. Cloud University:

"I have been trying CFL's for several years and have yet to have one that lasts longer than an incandescent bulb. Again the politicians are trying to run our lives. As another writer mentions, the costs of producing and disposing of the CFL's are probably much greater than the operating and disposal costs of incandescents. Of course no one wants to analyze that as the politicians will lose their kick backs from the Chinese manufacturers (I despise congress and don't trust them)"

(December 15, 2011)

 

Wow, an anecdote that also has a conspiracy angle. I've used CFLs for years and haven't had to replace them at nearly the rate I would replace incandescents. So there.

 

And "probably much greater"? Are you quoting a math-o-phobe? Why do you have to guess when you can do the analysis?

 

Real-world reports from the home front show that the claimed extended lifespan of CFLs is often greatly exaggerated. There is ample data indicating that the frequent switching on and off of CFLs greatly shortens their life. A study by H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and co-author Amanda Berg concludes:

“Unfortunately, except under a fairly narrow range of circumstances, CFLs are less efficient than advertised. Manufacturers claim the average life span of a CFL bulb is 10,000 hours. However, in many applications the life and energy savings of a CFL are significantly lower. Applications in which lighting is used only briefly (such as closets, bathrooms, motion detectors and so forth) will cause CFL bulbs to burn out as quickly as regular incandescent bulbs . . . When initially switched on, CFLs may provide as little as 50 percent to 80 percent of their rated light output and can take up to three minutes to reach full brightness.”

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba637/

 

This is a known issue with CFLs. You know what the solution is? Don't use them in these situations.

[rigney]

I can only assume you are using a definition of essentially that means "not, but I don't have an actual, factual counterargument". You are shifting the goalposts from "incandescents" to "regular incandescents" and back when it suits you. Incandescent bulbs are not being banned. This is not a lie.

 

 

 

 

I wasn't talking about the "normal" ones, which are very inefficient. See the above objection to moving the goalposts.

 

 

 

Bold emphasis added. So you admit, it does not ban incandescent bulbs. I'm tired of people falsely claiming that the law does this.

 

 

 

Oooh, five times. That's a lot. But that's per bulb, and since this is not a 1-for-1 replacement, that's not exactly an honest comparison.

 

A typical CFL lasts ~5x longer than a typical traditional incandescent (numbers vary somewhat depending on the source; some put it at more than 10), so the actual energy to produce a set amount of lighting is about the same. 1/5 x 5 = 1. So production energy is a wash, and you're left with the lower operating costs. Which, BTW, are a lot more than the cost of the bulb. 1000 hours for a 100W bulb is 100 kWh. At $0.10 per kWh, that's $10 to operate a traditional bulb. Much, much more than the cost of the bulb.

 

 

 

Wow, an anecdote that also has a conspiracy angle. I've used CFLs for years and haven't had to replace them at nearly the rate I would replace incandescents. So there.

 

And "probably much greater"? Are you quoting a math-o-phobe? Why do you have to guess when you can do the analysis?

 

 

 

This is a known issue with CFLs. You know what the solution is? Don't use them in these situations.

 

Now that the math is all figured out, the only question I have is: How do we sell these new CFLs to the poor who doesn't have money to purchase them?

[Anders Hoveland]

The law basically has the effect of banning normal light bulbs, for all practical purposes. Surely you are not disagreeing with that?

 

I am not aware of the existence of any "higher-efficiency" incandescent light bulbs that will be allowed under the law. If you know where I can buy incandescent bulbs with an efficiency over 45 lumens/Watt, please tell us all where to find them.

 

As for those "other options" you claim, what exactly are they? I certainly do not think it is realistic to expect normal people to swith over to LED lighting. It is just too expensive. Sure you can buy an LED night light for a few dollars, but how bright is it? Not bright enough for much. Please, if you feel I am mistaken, tell us all where we buy an affordable LED bulb that puts out the equivalent light of a 100 Watt incandescent (by affordable, I mean under 70 dollars for 1 bulb)

 

And what other lighting option do we have? Candles? Kerosene lamps?

No, for those of us who do not have stockpiles of the old bulbs, the only other practical option is buying those wretched CFL's.

 

Stop getting into technicalities. It is a ban! It seems obvious to me that you are one of the people in favor of the law, and want to force CFL's onto everyone else, whether they like it or not.

 

You would not be the first. There are plenty of other lies and misleading claims that have appeared in the media and even on government sites. People were even going around on the internet saying that it was all just a false rumor, that Americans would still be able to buy incandescent bulbs. After the 100 Watt bulbs dissappeared from store shelves in the first phase in the law, the nazi-environmentalists claimed normal incandescents would be banned, but halogen bulbs would still be available. Now the 70 Watt bulbs have dissappeared, and those halogen bulbs we were promised are nowhere to be found (except for the very dim ones, which will soon also be banned).

Edited June 15, 2012 by Anders Hoveland

[swansont]

The law basically has the effect of banning normal light bulbs, for all practical purposes. Surely you are not disagreeing with that?

 

Fine, I will repeat myself. Again. What you are referring to as "normal" light bulbs will not meet the efficiency standards. That's not the same as saying incandescent light bulbs are being banned. There are higher-efficency bulbs which are incandescent. Incandescent bulbs are available, thus they are not being banned.

 

I am not aware of the existence of any "higher-efficiency" incandescent light bulbs that will be allowed under the law. If you know where I can buy incandescent bulbs with an efficiency over 45 lumens/Watt, please tell us all where to find them.

 

Argument from personal incredulity and refusal to use a search engine is not much of an argument.

 

http://www.bulbs.com/espec.aspx?ID=18362&RefId=750

 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 Compliant

 

Note that your demand of compliance with the law and 45 lumens/Watt are different. 45 lumens/Watt is NOT the law in effect today, that's the standard to be implemented 8 years from now. I refer you to the objection of moving the goalposts I made in my previous post.

 

As for those "other options" you claim, what exactly are they? I certainly do not think it is realistic to expect normal people to swith over to LED lighting. It is just too expensive. Sure you can buy an LED night light for a few dollars, but how bright is it? Not bright enough for much. Please, if you feel I am mistaken, tell us all where we buy an affordable LED bulb that puts out the equivalent light of a 100 Watt incandescent (by affordable, I mean under 70 dollars for 1 bulb)

 

And what other lighting option do we have? Candles? Kerosene lamps?

No, for those of us who do not have stockpiles of the old bulbs, the only other practical option is buying those wretched CFL's.

 

The other option is the incandescent bulbs I have linked to, your claims of nonexistence notwithstanding.

 

Stop getting into technicalities. It is a ban! It seems obvious to me that you are one of the people in favor of the law, and want to force CFL's onto everyone else, whether they like it or not.

 

Again, I refer you to the link selling incandescent bulbs that meet the current standards.

 

You would not be the first. There are plenty of other lies and misleading claims that have appeared in the media and even on government sites. People were even going around on the internet saying that it was all just a false rumor, that Americans would still be able to buy incandescent bulbs. After the 100 Watt bulbs dissappeared from store shelves in the first phase in the law, the nazi-environmentalists claimed normal incandescents would be banned, but halogen bulbs would still be available. Now the 70 Watt bulbs have dissappeared, and those halogen bulbs we were promised are nowhere to be found (except for the very dim ones, which will soon also be banned).

 

The word "lie" is used quite cavalierly, given the amount of misinformation in your posts.

[Anders Hoveland]

The murky politics of the lightbulb ban, how lobbyists seek to increase corporate profits:

http://www.ceolas.net/

 

blog on why CFL's are not as good as the claims, and why consumers deserve the freedom to choose:

http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/

 

Even in many offices, we are seeing employees turn off the fluorescent ceiling lights and bring in incandescent lamps. Obviously some people are very unhappy with the quality of fluorescent light.

 

 

 

There are higher-efficency bulbs which are incandescent. Incandescent bulbs are available, thus they are not being banned.

 

No, there are no "higher-efficiency" incandescent bulbs that will be available. They are essentially being banned. Like I mentioned, you have failed show that these alleged bulbs even exist, much less where we can buy them.

 

Here is an exerpt from the above link:

 

The "Similar bulbs will still be allowed" deceit

 

Consumers are deceived in many ways with the light bulb policy they are told will be so good for them. However, one should particularly note the main defence tactic that will be employed by American politicians and agencies, exactly like in Europe and Australia, when the governments there were faced with concerned citizens...

 

"We don't wan't to have to use the dim unsafe mercury-containing squiggly bulbs with their unnatural light!"

"Don't worry! Energy efficient incandescent light bulbs, similar to ordinary incandescent light bulbs, will still be allowed!"

 

To begin with,

Replacement Halogens have a whiter light type and like all replacement incandescents have constructional differences with simple regular bulbs, apart from costing much more for relatively small energy savings, which is why neither consumers or governments like them, since they have been around for a while now without being sold much.

 

Thereby that in the USA, as in the EU, all currently known incandescent replacement bulbs, Halogen or otherwise, will only temporarily be allowed - as in the regulation references above. [see in the site]

Only if they become as energy efficient as CFLs and LEDs would they be allowed:

Not just unlikely, but if it did occur, it would involve constructional compromise and cost that made them even more different from simple regular bulbs - notwithstanding that any such lighting, like all lighting, would of course have its own advantage too.

 

Moreover, in post-ban 2011 Europe (as in UK, Ireland, Scandinavia, Germany and Italy) and Australia, replacement energy efficient incandescents are only available in limited replacement range, regarding sizes and wattages compared to the pre-ban range of simple regular cheap bulbs.

Also, they are hardly available in general stores and supermarkets, which push CFL sales:

Replacement Halogen types are usually only available in specialist shops, and since LEDS are unsuitable as replacements for regular bulbs (too high a price, especially for omni-directional bright replacements), what is seen in supermarkets and general stores is not just the almost sole availability of CFLs, but also the in-store enticement to buy them, marketed as as "saving consumers a lot of money".

 

Replacement incandescents, like Halogens, will also be banned in the USA and EU.

Post-ban EU already lacks touted Halogen availability, CFL retail sales being pushed.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Anders Hoveland

[Moontanman]

I have to admit I've had a lot of problems with CFLs, I replace them at a rate not any better than incandescents. The new house I moved into eats CFLs, they are expensive to replace that often.

[swansont]

No, there are no "higher-efficiency" incandescent bulbs that will be available.

 

I gave you a link.

[iNow]

The new house I moved into eats CFLs, they are expensive to replace that often.

They tend to be more sensitive to poor wiring and dimmer switches. What's the wiring like in your home? Is there too much load on each breaker?

[Moontanman]

They tend to be more sensitive to poor wiring and dimmer switches. What's the wiring like in your home? Is there too much load on each breaker?

 

 

You could have a point, the house is very old, 80 years or so and the wiring is hodge podge of various eras.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Anders,

This is becoming a case of soap boxing. You have made your points, which members here have refuted and you seem to have completely ignored. You cannot possibly claim that those bulbs cannot be purchased, when swansont posted you a link to a site that sells them. Please start engaging in honest discussion or this thread will be closed.

[rigney]

!

Moderator Note

Anders,

 

This is becoming a case of soap boxing. You have made your points, which members here have refuted and you seem to have completely ignored. You cannot possibly claim that those bulbs cannot be purchased, when swansont posted you a link to a site that sells them. Please start engaging in honest discussion or this thread will be closed.

 

No argument with their application and possible savings, but at those prices; how is an indigent supposed to purchase them? Edited June 16, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

Seriously, how much more are they than incandescents?

 

Let's say you pay $0.50 for an incandescent. It will last 1,000 hours

Instead, you pay $3.00 for a fluorescent that lasts 10,000 hours

 

You have to buy 10 incandescent bulbs to match one fluorescent, so it will actually cost you $5.00.

 

In short... Mr. "I'm poor and indigent, and just an ole' mountain slob... oh woe is me," the more efficient bulb is saving you money on your electric bill AND at the store.

 

Edit for link: http://www.ajdesigner.com/fl_light_bulb/light_bulb.php

Edited June 16, 2012 by iNow

[hypervalent_iodine]

No argument with their application and possible savings, but at those prices; how is an indigent supposed to purchase them?

 

...Wut?

[rigney]

Seriously, how much more are they than incandescents?

 

Let's say you pay $0.50 for an incandescent. It will last 1,000 hours

Instead, you pay $3.00 for a fluorescent that lasts 10,000 hours

 

You have to buy 10 incandescent bulbs to match one fluorescent, so it will actually cost you $5.00.

 

In short... Mr. "I'm poor and indigent, and just an ole' mountain slob... oh woe is me," the more efficient bulb is saving you money on your electric bill AND at the store.

 

Edit for link: http://www.ajdesigner.com/fl_light_bulb/light_bulb.php

 

Evidently neither you nor I have the problem of saving a buck. But only an idiot would think there aren't people out there who doesn't have that extra buck.

[Moontanman]

Evidently neither you nor I have the problem of saving a buck. But only an idiot would think there aren't people out there who doesn't have that extra buck.

 

 

I am going to go with rigney on this one, I have in recent years been in that boat where $1 made a big difference in my life, deciding to buy a fancy light bulb or buy a cheap one and eat... I generally choose eating... as far as my electric bill goes I see no discernible difference... then again I live near a nuclear power plant, power plants both nuclear and coal fired are scattered around the area and electricity is cheap...

[iNow]

And, as I showed, the CFLs will save you two bucks...

[swansont]

No argument with their application and possible savings, but at those prices; how is an indigent supposed to purchase them?

 

I think that discussion of government aid programs (and possibly electing officials who won't gut them) is another topic.

[rigney]

And, as I showed, the CFLs will save you two bucks...

 

Right! But a drowning man grasping at straws can't possibly envision looking at your bail of hay.

 

I think that discussion of government aid programs (and possibly electing officials who won't gut them) is another topic.

 

I simply offered an observation, the government and aid program remarks must have came from someone else. Edited June 16, 2012 by rigney