I'm Hoarding Light Bulbs

[Sam48]

As of January 1st, 2014, it will be illegal to import and manufacture incandescent 40 and 60 watt light bulbs in the United States. Thanks to Bush, I am now hoarding these bulbs for literally no good reason. Honestly, is there one good reason they decided to outlaw a good or service? Plus, what gives the government the right to outlaw a product? The Healthcare mandate? Honestly, this country is getting worse by the day.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Happened in the EU a few years ago. Why they didn't just tax them off the market I don't know.

There's no real reason to keep using incandescent bulbs as far as I know, what with improved CFC (?) and LED tech, but it's not a good reason to ban them.

 

[Wolfe]

I guess they make CFLs with cold-weather ballasts but the CFL we put in for a porch light wouldn't start anymore once temperatures dropped, so we traded it with an incandescent from inside. We've also got about a half dozen tube-style fluorescent overhead light fixtures in our house, which apparently have been banned too, which means whole new fixtures once we can't get replacement tubes/ballasts. Awesome.

 

[Slash]

I personally love them for the tone of light they give off.

 

[Imari]

There's no real reason to keep using incandescent bulbs as far as I know, what with improved CFC (?) and LED tech, but it's not a good reason to ban them.

For me, they still give off the most pleasant light of anything available. I would pay extra for that.

 

[Grayfox]

They banned them for this reason and the main parts are in bold.

100w incandescent gives off the same light as the following
16w CFL
11w LED

Now let say you run it for 10 hours.

100w in 10 hours is 1Kw.
16w in 10 hours is 160w
11w in 10 hours is 110w

Now if the price of electricity is 1.28 per kilowatt hour

The following bulbs will cost this much to run

100w incandesent $1.28
16w CFL $0.21
11w LED $0.14


As for the 60w.
a 5w LED does the same job

I run a 9w LED light in my room and it is like a 75w incan.

It is a natural white color as well.

I guess they make CFLs with cold-weather ballasts but the CFL we put in for a porch light wouldn't start anymore once temperatures dropped, so we traded it with an incandescent from inside. We've also got about a half dozen tube-style fluorescent overhead light fixtures in our house, which apparently have been banned too, which means whole new fixtures once we can't get replacement tubes/ballasts. Awesome.

The older tube style ones have been banned.

The T8 and newer T5 would be legal.

 

[Tornado]

Okay. I read your post. So what's the reason then?

 

[Grayfox]

Cost to run and Power used.

If 100 people use a 100w lightbulb for 10 hours
That is 100Kw and cost to run is $128

vs

If 100 people use a 16w lightbulb for 10 hours
That is 16Kw cost to run is $21 and 84Kw of power saved

vs

If 100 people use a 11w lightbulb for 10 hours
That is 11Kw cost to run is $14 and 89kw of power saved.

Now if everyone used LED lighting, there would be less load on the power stations and substations which means upgrades can be put off for longer.

Upgrades that are put off means power bills don't go up to pay back for the upgrades done.

 

[Tornado]

No, you see, that just explains that they are cheaper to run. You already did that once, which is odd as no one was contesting that in the first place. And repeating the costs to run are lower when asked about it (which, again, was known beforehand) still doesn't answer the question.

 

[Grayfox]

Cheaper to run, less power used, less greenhouse gases produced, longer life, less waste in landfills

 

[Tornado]

Okay. You're still not grasping the disconnect with your evidence of savings and your initial statement, so I'll make it simple: Correlate the benefits to the consumer with the need to ban the alternative when they don't care for the benefits. I suspect you'll try to throw out some sort of "for the greater good" nonsense, but maybe I'll be surprised.

 

[Grayfox]

Australia banned them as they were inefficient compared to what is on the market, so why keep something inefficient?

The benefits to the consumer are the following with the price of electricity going up they save money by using something more efficient that gives of the same light and lasts at least 2x longer.
You can get CFLs in warm white, cool white and natural whites.

If you want a more detailed answer, write a letter to congress.

The reasons they were banned in Australia are explained and most likely the same reasoning now for the US.

You can not even get 50w Halogen downlights in Australia.
I still have 2 of these bulbs which were from my old car.

 

[Tornado]

So you don't have an actual reason (because, no, "this one thing is better" is not an automatic excuse to ban the old thing, particularly when people don't seem to care if that one thing is better) beyond:

for the greater good

As I thought.



Carry on.

 

[CodeRedR51]

As I thought. Carry on.

Not sure how you expect him to know the exact answer, although he pretty much had it nailed. As he said, if you want a more thorough explanation should probably ask the government. Seeing as we're not the first or only country to do this, I doubt it's "just because".

 

[Tornado]

I expect him to actually relate the concept of "energy savings for consumers" with "need to ban alternatives on the market;" since the thread was made directly asking why there was a need for a ban and thus when he says "they banned them for this reason" the reasoning should actually follow the statement. Repeatedly stating the energy savings of LEDs and CFLs doesn't explain the need for a ban on incandescent. All it does is attempt to justify it, and does so with the always arbitrary "for the greater good" standard that I predicted he would use.

 

[Grayfox]

Ask congress and post what they say(if they reply at all)

 

[Sam48]

Australia banned them as they were inefficient compared to what is on the market, so why keep something inefficient?

I know really, "why keep something inefficient?". You know by that logic, government should be banning things like super cars and power showers and what not. Honestly Grayfox, can you grasp the concept of freedom of choice? Because that's what we're really talking about here.

 

[Slash]

By that logic, lets ban every old car on the road because they are inefficient in comparison to what's on the market now.

 

[Grayfox]

By that logic, lets ban every old car on the road because they are inefficient in comparison to what's on the market now.

Many are not on the road in Australia, but it is due to them failing road worthyness tests.

The new laws say banned from being sold by stores and banned from being made.

Your country has emission laws that all cars must meet.
Your country also has laws about safety devices in cars like traction control
A new one that is built like an old tank will not pass emission laws or have traction control, thus cant be sold.

 

[Jay]

By that logic, lets ban every old car on the road because they are inefficient in comparison to what's on the market now.

Well, if you think about it, they did do the same thing with cars.

Emission laws outlaw those old cars to be made and sold as new, in the same way as the light bulbs. Old light bulbs can be used just as they were, you just can't buy new ones.



btw for the record I don't agree with a full ban as has been done here in AU.

Many are not on the road in Australia, but it is due to them failing road worthyness tests.

Not really, it's not hard to get them to pass road worthy tests (road worthy rules from the day they were produced). It's just most people drive something more modern for day to day use and leave the classics for joy rides on weekends. Nothing has changed in that way.

 

[Slash]

I think that more or less depends in where you live regulation wise. There are plenty of exceptions and most of those laws were put in place a technology grew, not to ban them. If that was the case, you wouldn't ever see muscle cars. Across most of the states, the cars weren't downright banned, every emissions or safety regulation passed was integrated into the following model year.

 

[Jay]

There are plenty of exceptions and most of those laws were put in place a technology grew, not to ban them. If that was the case, you wouldn't ever see muscle cars.

New muscle cars (assuming that's what you mean) are still around because they have adapted to new laws, just like bulbs need to and are, with different technology. Can GM or Ford still produce a high volume legal street car with a carby and "cat"less exhausts? Nope, different technology is needed to keep these cars legal.


Again I am not in support of these banning laws, I generally hate blanket bans.

 

[Slash]

New muscle cars (assuming that's what you mean) are still around because they have adapted to new laws, just like bulbs need to and are, with different technology. Can GM or Ford still produce a high volume legal street car with a carby and "cat"less exhausts? Nope, different technology is needed to keep these cars legal.

I mean as far as old muscle cars. Carbs can't keep up anyone because fuel injection has taken over (this really started as early as the 50s) and thus has proven itself better, but Ford was doing a hell of a job with Carter feedback carbs into ECU units in the 1980s before OBDII.

I think it's somewhat true for both aspects though. Technology got better and with it came tougher laws. Before half those those laws even went into effect, companies were doing what they could for emissions before hand. The Boss 429 for example had 3 different coded engines for this...S, T and A and T and A were the emissions engines, while the S code was the more powerful, non emissions NASCAR styled engine. They were essentially the same engines (T and A) but had more emissions stuff on them, and IIRC, there wasn't hardly any laws for it in 1969.


I get what you are saying though.

 

[Imari]

Australia banned them as they were inefficient compared to what is on the market, so why keep something inefficient?

Because it's nicer. Some of us are willing to have a higher power bill for the sake of more pleasant lighting.

Good news is you can still buy halogen incandescents in Australia because they meet the efficiency requirement. They're slightly more efficient, I think I have 72w ones which are the equivalent of a 100w "standard" incandescent.

 

[TB]

Should incandescent lamps be banned? I really don't see why they need to be.

I also don't see why a superior product that will provide you with the same end result and, in the long run, cost you less to operate needs this much backlash. It's not like all of your lighting fixtures need to be replaced, too.

 

[Grayfox]

I also don't see why a superior product that will provide you with the same end result and, in the long run, cost you less to operate needs this much backlash. It's not like all of your lighting fixtures need to be replaced, too.

Worst case is some may need to be replaced or modified.

If you have flurotube housings and you want to use LED tubes you will need to replace the starter or remove it.

 

[Azuremen]

Should incandescent lamps be banned? I really don't see why they need to be.

I also don't see why a superior product that will provide you with the same end result and, in the long run, cost you less to operate needs this much backlash. It's not like all of your lighting fixtures need to be replaced, too.

The more valid reason would be the mercury content in most CFL bulbs, last I checked anyway, being enough to merit mild concern when broke. Nothing crazy though, but I could see some people objecting to the reduction of non-toxic alternatives

As for the more pleasing light from incandescent bulbs, it is just more yellow. Most modern fluorescent bulbs are far closer to "white" daylight than incandescent bulbs, at least in my experience. They do have a slight green cast to them though, and older ones it is fairly noticeable.

Still don't see why it was necessary to ban a product for the "greater good." We haven't banned tobacco or booze yet, and that certainly costs society more than smaller power bills

 

[Grayfox]

We haven't banned tobacco or booze yet, and that certainly costs society more than smaller power bills

Because they pax taxes and "keep me on shelve" costs.


If anyone has downlights, start hording the 50w ones.
I cant find them here and a few light stores said they are no longer for sale.

 

[Azuremen]

Because they pax taxes and "keep me on shelve" costs.

And this can't be done for light bulbs why?

 

[Grayfox]

And this can't be done for light bulbs why?

The company that makes them also or more than likely makes CFL and LED bulbs now.
So they can stop producing them saving on production costs, wharehouse space and focus on improving their current product range.

And they dont pay tax and i am not talking about the normal tax all businesses pay but the speical tobbaco and alcohol taxes they are charged with.

They can even take the country to court if you prevent them from selling their product.