PDA

View Full Version : The Incandescent Ban is Off !



Andrew Joiner
01-14-2014, 6:07 PM
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/01/as-part-of-budget-deal-congress-blacks-light-bulb-efficiency-standards/ (http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/01/as-part-of-budget-deal-congress-blacks-light-bulb-efficiency-standards/)

Pat Barry
01-14-2014, 6:41 PM
Yay, but now I have a ton of bulbs stockpiled already. I'm good for 5 years. LOL. ()

Larry Edgerton
01-14-2014, 6:44 PM
I thought that was one of the few good things they did..........

What do I know?

Larry

Bruce Page
01-14-2014, 7:00 PM
Yay, but now I have a ton of bulbs stockpiled already. I'm good for 5 years. LOL. ()

We've been phasing out the regular incandescent bulbs but we stockpiled at least 10 years worth of 3-way bulbs, LOL.

Steve Rozmiarek
01-14-2014, 7:02 PM
I'm shocked! Can't find any other sources for the story though, which is weird.

Andrew Joiner
01-14-2014, 7:13 PM
I heard it on the TV news. I googled" light bulb news" and found the page I linked to.

Oh, and the TV news report said a farmer in Nebraska will be happy to hear this news!

Steve Rozmiarek
01-14-2014, 9:32 PM
I heard it on the TV news. I googled" light bulb news" and found the page I linked to.

Oh, and the TV news report said a farmer in Nebraska will be happy to hear this news!

LOL! Wonder who, I might know him! I saw it on a couple other sources after my last post BTW. I'm just google impaired tonight.

Steve Wurster
01-14-2014, 9:42 PM
As the promoted comment on the article now states, the bill only eliminates the funding to enforce the new standards. It doesn't remove the new standards. Plus what's not listed is that manufacturers have already done the phase out on their own; they are actually in favor of the change to new bulb technology.

Greg Peterson
01-14-2014, 11:33 PM
As the promoted comment on the article now states, the bill only eliminates the funding to enforce the new standards. It doesn't remove the new standards. Plus what's not listed is that manufacturers have already done the phase out on their own; they are actually in favor of the change to new bulb technology.

Correct on all counts.

Ty Williams
01-14-2014, 11:49 PM
I was sad to hear this, actually. I'm encouraged that only the funding is killed and not the requirement itself. However, if corporations know they can break the law and get away with it because no one can get paid to prosecute them, well, they're obviously going to break the law. I actually think it was a terrifically done legislation. The government just said "You have to do better than X and we don't care how you do it.". They didn't try to tell us what we had to use, they didn't try to tell us how we had to achieve it, they just set a requirement that benefited the country and the let the market work out how the standard was going to be met. They really ought to do more of the things they regulate that way.

Brian Elfert
01-15-2014, 6:47 AM
I just bought two of the new halogen bulbs yesterday for a light fixture that is totally enclosed and rarely used. CFL wouldn't last due to heat and LED doesn't make sense for a light that is used maybe once a month. They are even made in the USA.

Just because funding isn't there for enforcing a law doesn't mean the law doesn't exist.

Earl McLain
01-15-2014, 7:40 AM
Timely topic in our house. On 12-30-2013 we put 4 CFL's in our kitchen light fixture. On 1-7-2014 one was burned out. This morning, a second is burned out. This time of year, that light is on about 5 or 6 hours/day. GE bulbs, 25 watt (60 w equivalent) in an open fixture with 40 to 80 hours of service. Since this is the fixture we use the most, we tried CFL's a few years ago and had similar results so didn't bother doing any others in the house. Generic incandescent bulbs typically lasted 18 to 24 months in the same fixture. Not convinced this is really cost-effective, and there is no way that throwing these away every few weeks is environmentally friendly.

We may start looking at kerosene lamps. Not bashing the idea of efficiency--but our limited experience has not been impressive.

earl

David Weaver
01-15-2014, 8:03 AM
However, if corporations know they can break the law and get away with it because no one can get paid to prosecute them, well, they're obviously going to break the law.

As far as energy efficiency goes and keeping up with standards in general, I'd imagine legal compliance among private individuals is quite a bit worse than it is at a corporate level.

The light bulb issue is self solving at this point. Energy efficiency is marketed hard and my generation (who likes to have the house lit end to end and sometimes outside, too) will go for efficient bulbs because it'll make economic sense. Removing the law itself at this point would've been preferable, in my opinion, because it wouldn't screw over the folks who have, for example, a need for a bulb that provides light and heat (nurseries or animal breeders, etc), or folks like farmers who have a 100 watt bulb in the back of a shed or grain storage that comes on 3 times a year for a minute or ten (where the CFL choice leaves them squinting in cold weather while it turns on).

David Weaver
01-15-2014, 8:05 AM
Timely topic in our house. On 12-30-2013 we put 4 CFL's in our kitchen light fixture. On 1-7-2014 one was burned out. This morning, a second is burned out. This time of year, that light is on about 5 or 6 hours/day. GE bulbs, 25 watt (60 w equivalent) in an open fixture with 40 to 80 hours of service. Since this is the fixture we use the most, we tried CFL's a few years ago and had similar results so didn't bother doing any others in the house. Generic incandescent bulbs typically lasted 18 to 24 months in the same fixture. Not convinced this is really cost-effective, and there is no way that throwing these away every few weeks is environmentally friendly.

We may start looking at kerosene lamps. Not bashing the idea of efficiency--but our limited experience has not been impressive.

earl

The crees would probably last a long time in it, but at a cost of $10-$13 each. If it's on 5-6 hours a day, and the cree bulbs use 9.5 watts, you might get your money back over a period of years.

Phil Thien
01-15-2014, 8:58 AM
I'm encouraged that only the funding is killed and not the requirement itself. However, if corporations know they can break the law and get away with it because no one can get paid to prosecute them, well, they're obviously going to break the law.

Was a bill ever passed by congress and sent to the white house, which was signed by the president? A real law?

I had thought this was all regulatory, done by the EPA.

If it was regulatory, the typical way to "fix" it is to defund enforcement. Basically telling the agency they can spend no time/money/other resources on it.

And notwithstanding comments that this won't change anything because bulb manufacturers were for the new mandates, I'm telling you right now to expect to see conventional bulbs on the shelves again. All it takes is one manufacturer that realizes there is an unserved market segment.

David Weaver
01-15-2014, 9:03 AM
I agree, Phil. I'd expect that there will be a small selection of "banned" bulbs on the shelves, too, because there will be a few customers who want them. It's not like someone will have to make them from scratch over here, they'll just come from overseas.

Greg Peterson
01-15-2014, 10:21 AM
However, if corporations know they can break the law and get away with it because no one can get paid to prosecute them, well, they're obviously going to break the law.

Call me a cynic, but why wouldn't a company just chalk this up as the cost of doing business. Any well funded private lawyer firm can beat the public prosecutors.

Art Mann
01-15-2014, 11:14 AM
The mandate for industry to go to more efficient lighting is, in my opinion, a useless and overreaching move that demonstrates that those who are in charge are bureaucrats and not engineers. Industry embraced fluorescent lighting decades ago where it is feasible because of the energy savings. I know because I witnessed it in my own Fortune 500 company.

As for residential lighting, one needs to do a little math before coming to the conclusion that this mandate was useful. Start by determining the percentage of power consumption that is residential rather than industrial or commercial. Then, multiply that by the percentage of residential power consumption that is used for lighting. Then, multiply that number by the percentage of household lighting that would not have been converted to more efficient Lightning anyway whether the mandate was in effect or not. What you will come up with is an insignificant number that would have no practical effect on the energy consumption of the nation. Market forces are so much more effective than Government mandates.

Rod Sheridan
01-15-2014, 11:52 AM
Actually Art, government mandates are much more effective as they can immediately enact something that must be complied with, not something that's discretionary.........Regards, Rod.

Brian Kerley
01-15-2014, 12:27 PM
We've been phasing out the regular incandescent bulbs but we stockpiled at least 10 years worth of 3-way bulbs, LOL.

I don't think 3-ways were ever part of the ban....

Art Mann
01-15-2014, 1:19 PM
Actually Art, government mandates are much more effective as they can immediately enact something that must be complied with, not something that's discretionary.........Regards, Rod.

Mandates are effective at making the public angry and resentful. Mandates are effective at altering behavior. Mandates always reduce personal freedom by definition. Mandates may, at times, be effective in fixing problems. That is by no means certain . . . or even typical. Mandates are the result of decisions by people who are often not knowledgeable enough to understand the technology involved or the unintended consequences of their mandates. Saying mandates are effective is the same as saying change always equals progress.

Bruce Page
01-15-2014, 1:24 PM
I don't think 3-ways were ever part of the ban....

They are exempt but we didn't want to take any chances, and we'll use them eventually anyway.

From Wikipedia:

"Also exempt are several classes of specialty lights, including appliance lamps, rough service bulbs, 3-way, colored lamps, stage lighting, plant lights, candelabra lights under 60 watts, outdoor post lights less than 100 watts, nightlights and shatter resistant bulbs."

Ty Williams
01-15-2014, 1:35 PM
Mandates are effective at making the public angry and resentful.
Often some portion of the public needs to be angry and resentful. People often have a hard time recognizing a good idea because "it's not how my pappy did it!". People dislike change more than they like improvement or success. That seems especially true here in the States where so many people want to make public policy decisions off of emotions and faith rather than reason and research. Building codes make people angry and resentful but save a lot of lives. Traffic lights make people angry and resentful yet save lives and prevent intersections from turning into a free for all. Campfire bans make people angry and resentful yet are effective in reducing wildfire during fire season. Labor regulations and safety regulations make people angry and resentful yet we sure maim a whole lot fewer child workers than we used to.

Pissing people off isn't a sign that a mandate was a bad idea.

John Coloccia
01-15-2014, 1:55 PM
Said something and then changed my mind....it's too early in the week to flirt with politics on SMC.

Jack Battersby
01-15-2014, 2:11 PM
All seems a bit ridiculous to me. If you are really out to save the planet, why would you replace an environmentally safe bulb with one that has hazardous materials in it.

Raise your hand if when your Florescent bulb goes out you put in a specially sealed package and deliver it to a hazardous materials dump site.
You can read the EPA guidelines on how to clean up a broken fluorescent bulb here. (Are you kidding me?)

If the Government really wanted to subsidise an industry, which by the way does not need subsidy, they should be backing LED bulb technology and get these dangerous (by their own admission) florescent bulbs off the market, not the inert incandescent bulbs.

Ty Williams
01-15-2014, 2:13 PM
It's been tried in other countries and energy use went UP as a direct result.
Citation required.



Further, your choice of lightbulb doesn't create a public hazard, such as a forest fire, not does it save lives.
Reducing energy usage absolutely reduces public hazard and saves lives. All of the ways we have of generating power endanger the public and kill people. Some are safer and kill fewer people (nuclear) and some are very dangerous and kill a lot of people (coal), but the ground truth is that every time you flip a light switch it contributes to some harm.



Before making these sweeping proclamations and rules, 'twould be nice if a bit more thought and study went into it.
In general form, I agree. However, thought and study can't go into it when one of the major parties in the US thinks science is a dirty word.

In this specific case, this was done well and in a way that was thoughtful and clever. They simply mandated that efficiency for the most common usages had to increase. It was left to the invisible hand of the market to produce the desired result which, in a capitalistic economy, is exactly what we're supposed to want.

David Weaver
01-15-2014, 2:30 PM
In general form, I agree. However, thought and study can't go into it when one of the major parties in the US thinks science is a dirty word.


Read the TOS, please.

Rod Sheridan
01-15-2014, 3:35 PM
Art, I wasn't commenting on whether people like mandates, it's not something I care much about.

Mandates are however very effective at producing the desired results, building codes are an excellent example. How well do you think voluntary stair design would work?

Regards, Rod.

Dan Hintz
01-15-2014, 3:44 PM
GE bulbs

'Nuff said. Where most good manufacturers will have a few lemons but the majority of the product is fine, GE is the exact opposite. It's unfortunate, but they have extremely poor quality control, which when combined with their penchant for penny pinching on even the cheapest of parts, leads to products that fail well before their time. People continue to purchase GE stuff because the price is usually at the bottom of the pyramid... but you have to be one of the lucky ones to get a product that survives any length of time.


EDIT: I highly recommend Philips/Cree...

Brian Elfert
01-15-2014, 4:44 PM
As I've said before, I rather like the GE CFLs. I have some that have been working for a good five years. They come on faster than any other CFL I have ever used. I bought a set of Philips CFL bulbs and they take forever to provide any meaningful light. I really, really want to use LED light bulbs, but I'm waiting for affordable LED bulbs that are 1600 lumens. (Affordable would be maybe $15 or less.)

Ty Williams
01-15-2014, 4:58 PM
As I've said before, I rather like the GE CFLs. I have some that have been working for a good five years. They come on faster than any other CFL I have ever used. I bought a set of Philips CFL bulbs and they take forever to provide any meaningful light. I really, really want to use LED light bulbs, but I'm waiting for affordable LED bulbs that are 1600 lumens. (Affordable would be maybe $15 or less.)

The CFLs were just a technology that never needed to happen. The quality of light was generally poor and the warm-up period was abysmal. The house we bought this year came with all CFLs. We've converted all the ones we use daily to LED but a few are still CFL on the out-building. We recently had some -20F temps. The CFLs under the eaves are left on 24/7 but they dimmed to a dull red like a glowstick during the really cold temps at night. The LEDs we have outside, on the other hand, were still at full brightness and still the correct color. Cree has a 60W A19 replacement (800Lm, 2700K, 85CRI) they sell through Home Depot that isn't bad. It wouldn't be my choice for a task area, but they're great for hallways, closets, etc. We've got a lot of them. Right now, American Electric Power is subsidizing them to the point that they only cost $7.97. For your affordable 1600Lm lamp, Feit Electric makes one that's in that brightness range that gets resold under Lowes' Utillitech brand for about $21. The CRI is in the low 80s, which doesn't thrill me, but we're using them for porch lights were quantity of light has a quality all its own.

Brian Kerley
01-15-2014, 7:54 PM
All seems a bit ridiculous to me. If you are really out to save the planet, why would you replace an environmentally safe bulb with one that has hazardous materials in it.

Raise your hand if when your Florescent bulb goes out you put in a specially sealed package and deliver it to a hazardous materials dump site.
You can read the EPA guidelines on how to clean up a broken fluorescent bulb here. (Are you kidding me?)

If the Government really wanted to subsidise an industry, which by the way does not need subsidy, they should be backing LED bulb technology and get these dangerous (by their own admission) florescent bulbs off the market, not the inert incandescent bulbs.

The government didn't "subsidize" anything here really (from a CFL specific standpoint). They just outlawed the old bulbs. They also DID back LED's through their L-Prize, of which Philips won $10mil.

Dennis Peacock
01-15-2014, 8:20 PM
OK folks, This topic and one like it has been discussed at least more than the current "other" political type issues. Let's cool this one off and let it go to sleep. Ok?

Art Mann
01-15-2014, 9:08 PM
Sounds good to me.