The Incandescent Ban is Off !

[David Weaver]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Said something and then changed my mind....it's too early in the week to flirt with politics on SMC.

[Jack Battersby]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.)