I'm Hoarding Light Bulbs

[Azuremen]

Do you read what you post? Or read what people post?

You didn't answer why they can't just generate a special tax for light bulbs. In fact you just, you know, countered your own argument.

 

[Grayfox]

Do you read what you post? Or read what people post?

You didn't answer why they can't just generate a special tax for light bulbs. In fact you just, you know, countered your own argument.

And how much "tax" would they pay?

Tabbaco products are taxed and that equates to millions of dollars.

-------------------------------

What is the big deal about it any way?

People complained when analog signal was being turned off for TV, but people go over it.

 

[Azuremen]

And how much "tax" would they pay?

Tabbaco pay millions to counties.

Lighting companies don't have billions to spend to keep a few people who like the classic style of light bulbs.

Apparently you don't understand how taxes work...

 

[Sanji Himura]

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

The US did try to ban booze. It's called the 18th amendment.

The whole problem with this is that you have progressives on both sides of the aisle who say go green, when in truth, they do more to limit individual choice and potentially harm you than they would have if they just left everything alone.

 

[Imari]

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.

More yellow is the point. D65 or D50 is better than the old style white fluoro bulbs, but it's still harder on your eyes than a yellower light. D65 and D50 are intended to mimic natural light, but that doesn't mean that natural sunlight is the easiest thing on your eyes.

If you want the clearest vision and accurate colour reproduction or comparison, a daylight bulb is the best thing. If you want to go easy on your eyes, a yellower light is helpful. Particularly in lower light conditions. The inside of your house is unlikely to be as bright as outside at noon.

That aside, some people prefer a bright white light (look at all the people with 6500K+ HIDs on their cars), some prefer the yellower tint (I specifically chose lower colour temperature bulbs for my car).

 

[Grayfox]

Some people prefer a bright white light (look at all the people with 6500K+ HIDs on their cars), some prefer the yellower tint (I specifically chose lower colour temperature bulbs for my car).

I prefer Natural white.
I dont like to go nuts with cool blue
4500-5500 is the range I like

I run a 5000K LED bulb in my room.

The people who have 6500K HIDs are twits and they use them because they think it is "cool"

Running that color at night in the rain is like driving on willow springs at night, next to no light on the road.

I run 4500K halogens in my car which is 200K above ADR law but no cop can tell the difference between 4300K and 4500K

I got them because it was cheaper to get these from the UK along with a high beam bulb which in total cost me $70, but if I got the 4300K bulbs from a store it would have cost me $190
But I run 3000K Yellow halogen foglight bulbs.

 

[Adamgp]

I already stockpiled a bunch 40w, 60w, and 100w. Going back to Menards in a day or two for more.

After I go through those, I may give these a try:

http://www.newcandescent.com/

Pricey, but so are CFL's and LED's.

 

[wfooshee]

I was skeptical of the CFLs when they first came out. The first package of 6 that I bought had 2 dead ones and a dim one. Not impressed. However, the other three are still going after 6 years. As bulbs burned out in the house I have replaced them with CFLs, and I haven't replaced a bulb in 4 years now. The yellow bug light on the porch starts rather dimly when it's cold out, but reaches full brightness after a couple of minutes. The only fitment issue I've had is the globes over the lights in the garage were too small for the CFLs, so those are bare bulbs now.

As for the reason for the ban, the bill's stated purpose was to reduce energy consumption and dependence on foreign energy sources. Have I reduced my carbon footprint by using these bulbs? Hard to say. I haven't bothered to compare energy units used on my power bill, because the important part is the place with the dollar signs, and that still goes up all the time. I would venture a guess that energy for lighting my house is a very small fraction of the energy consumed here. Cooking, laundry, and air conditioning are much more significant on that power bill. (I have gas for hot water and central heat.)

 

[Grayfox]

Pricey, but so are CFL's and LED's.

CFL are not that pricy.

A few dollars more.

LEDs are the more expensive ones normally about $30 for a 11w

 

[LeMansAid]

The non-incandescent options currently look horrendous to me, and I don't think there's any need for a ban. People will convince themselves and each other that all sorts of things look, sound, taste better, regardless of what their objective self would otherwise think.

I was dumbfounded when plasma tvs begun turning up with motion interpolation (soap opera effect) as a feature. Software processing that was designed to attempt to overcome the shortcomings of lcd, that looked dreadful and had numerous side effects, somehow became desirable enough that a technology that didn't require it at all was sullied with it. I get the feeling that the people that claim to love cfl and led lighting in their homes have the same sort of skew going on.

As it turns out, the people adopting the newer lighting techs may have helped keep nicer lighting available for longer. If x amount of people didn't adopt, our misguided pollies may have forced it on all of us sooner. If only the dumb and the tasteless were always useful.

 

[Keef]

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.

Cheap upfront cost.

There should be no outlawing or taxing necessary. In time, the better product will rule. Consumers will buy what they want to buy, and when they start buying more modern bulbs and less incandescents the market will shift to satisfy them with more modern stuff.

The fact that governments do this sort of thing, especially ours, in various capacities, is appalling to me. There should be none of this regulation and it should be left to market forces.

 

[Adamgp]

CFL are not that pricy.

A few dollars more.

LEDs are the more expensive ones normally about $30 for a 11w

CFL's are $5-$10 each. LED's about the same, I just bought an 11w LED for $7.

Incandescents I can get for $.50 - $1 each.

 

[Grayfox]

Here LEDs start from $10 and range up to $40.
The $10 ones are the 40w like and the $40 are the 100w with dimming.

With LED bulbs you do not look at wattage, but lumens but also then look at wattage.

The bulb I use is 900lm and it uses 9w which is 100lm/watt which is quite good these days for replacement LEDs.

 

[kikie]

You must be one of the Illuminati with all those light bulbs.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Cheap upfront cost.

There should be no outlawing or taxing necessary. In time, the better product will rule. Consumers will buy what they want to buy, and when they start buying more modern bulbs and less incandescents the market will shift to satisfy them with more modern stuff.

The fact that governments do this sort of thing, especially ours, in various capacities, is appalling to me. There should be none of this regulation and it should be left to market forces.

You're right. The only reason why the government does any sort of regulatory nonsense to begin with is because everybody knows that the free market will ultimately decide what is best for the people. Take Solyndra for example. President Obama sunk $535 million of our money in the company before it went bust. Where is our reasonable rate of return? There is none! The government spends for every second, $2,000, and do we see any of the members of congress put in prison for grand theft? No. Because we keep putting them into the positions of power that would rather rob us of our national soul for a globalist agenda than to smarten up and vote reasonable people in where others have not.

We, as a society, have become a culture of corruption and ignorance that would take the politicians words as gospel instead of taking them at their word and judging them by their actions.

 

[FoolKiller]

I've hoarded incandescents because I hated CFLs. Sorry, they are not the same. No amount of improvement has made them that way. I've hated every one I owned.

Now though, LEDs are getting in a good price range and they can come in various light tones and work better in ways that CFLs struggled with, such as cold temps, appliance, and ceiling fan use. My kitchen is two bulbs away from being 100% LED, with exception of the appliance bulbs. I swear those things outlive the appliance more often than not.

Seeing as we're not the first or only country to do this, I doubt it's "just because".

I work for the government. I wouldn't be surprised. Trust me, I've seen policies and plans put into motion just to get money, and seen others shot down because the person over the division didn't come up with the idea, or it wasn't the policy plan to meet election promises.

Take every horrible bit of corruption you hear about in private corporations and double it. Government. And there is usually some corporation hand holding going on.


As to the lightbulb situation; General Electric, one of the US' biggest lightbulb manufacturers, was at the table when this regulation was discussed. They supported it. Why? Well, they get tax incentives. Oh, and the materials used in CFLs meant the factories had to be in China and other poorly environmentally regulated places where labor can be had for pennies an hour.

We pay GE to build CFLs overseas so we can save money on our electric bill. I don't think it balances out.

But maybe the shipping on diesel cargo ships is less harm than the good you did switching bulbs. Congratulations. You "saved" the environment and "saved" a few dollars per year on your electric bill. You, sir, are a hero. Please, accept this medal.

What? Oh, your neighbor moving his wife and three kids out of his foreclosed house? He lost his job at the lightbulb factory when it shut down. Like I said, you are a hero.

 

[CodeRedR51]

But maybe the shipping on diesel cargo ships is less harm than the good you did switching bulbs. Congratulations. You "saved" the environment and "saved" a few dollars per year on your electric bill. You, sir, are a hero. Please, accept this medal.

What? Oh, your neighbor moving his wife and three kids out of his foreclosed house? He lost his job at the lightbulb factory when it shut down. Like I said, you are a hero.

I hope this isn't directed at me. I purposely left this thread because after my first post I didn't want to be dragged into the crap.

 

[FoolKiller]

I hope this isn't directed at me. I purposely left this thread because after my first post I didn't want to be dragged into the crap.

No. I double spaced to try to separate it out. I just directed the "don't be surprised at bad government" comment in response to what I quoted.

 

[niky]

I am an absolute LED fanatic. There are cheap ones on the market now that don't have the same lifespan as the best, but maintain that 80% luminosity guarantee within the typical lifespan of a CFL, use less electricity than a CFL, and aren't a pollution/mercury/glassshardexplosion hazard.

BUT: I see absolutely no reason to ban incandescents. Hell... in the NICUs and nurseries (both for animals and humans), there is no substitute for the incandescent. If you really want to change consumer behaviour, add an upfront tax to bulbs based on expected energy usage, and give tax exemptions to those that give off the most lumens per watt.

But don't ban the alternatives.

 

[FoolKiller]

This sounds familiar.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/01/07/lights-out-for-americas-favorite-light-b?

Happy New Year, America! Your favorite light bulb is now illegal.

Well, sort of. As of January 1, U.S. businesses can no longer manufacture or import “general service” incandescent bulbs—the most popular light bulbs in America. Consumers can still buy and use them while supplies last, but the remaining inventory won’t be around for long. Home Depot says it will be out of the bulbs within six months. Some consumers have started to stockpile.

It’s all part of the energy efficiency standards mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The law already killed off the 100-watt incandescent bulb in 2012, followed by the 75-watt bulb in 2013. Now, in the final step of the phaseout, the minimum efficiency standards have effectively banned the ubiquitous 40- and 60- watt light bulbs.

The ban is crony capitalism in its most seductive form—when it’s disguised as green.

Major light bulb manufacturers supported the ban from the outset. The profit margin on old-style bulbs was pitifully low, and consumers just weren’t buying the higher-margin efficiency bulbs. New standards were needed, a lobbyist for the National Electrical Manufacturing Association told Congress in 2007, “in order to further educate consumers on the benefits of energy-efficient products.”

So Philips Electronics and other manufacturers joined with environmental groups to push for tighter lighting standards. As the New York Times Magazine explained in 2011, “Philips told its environmental allies it was well positioned to capitalize on the transition to new technologies and wanted to get ahead of an efficiency movement that was gaining momentum abroad and in states like California.” After much negotiation, a classic “bootleggers-and-Baptists” coalition was born. Industry and environmental groups agreed to endorse legislation to increase lighting efficiency by 25 to 30 percent.

Incandescent light bulbs, we’re told, are vastly inferior to the newfangled alternatives available today. The compact fluorescents lamps (CFLs), LEDs, and halogen bulbs are an apparent no-brainer: They last longer and convert much more of their energy into light rather than heat, all while cutting back on your energy bill. (So, of course, the government must stop you from ever making the mistake of choosing the traditional bulbs.)

Except many consumers aren’t buying it. The EPA estimates that, of the four billion light-bulb sockets in United States, more than three billion still hold incandescent bulbs. “By 2014, the traditional incandescent light bulbs… will be virtually obsolete,” claimed a 2007 press release from former Sen. Jeff Bingaman, the ban’s original sponsor. But according to the latest industry data, incandescents still make up nearly 65 percent of all U.S. light-bulb shipments.

Many consumers are turned off by the higher upfront costs of the alternatives. A single 40-watt LED bulb costs $7.50 or more, while a traditional incandescent bulb goes for around 40 cents. Some are finding that the CFLs don’t last nearly as long as their supporters claim—especially if they are switched on and off frequently, or if they are attached to a dimmer switch.

The list of complaints about the “efficient” bulbs goes on: They are often slow to respond, sensitive to high temperatures, and can cast a harsh and unattractive tone. CFLs also contain a small amount of mercury, which requires extensive and careful cleanup when a bulb breaks.

And they may not be saving us much energy after all. The typical U.S. home uses no less energy per capita than it did in the 1970s, despite an onslaught of efficiency standards for everything from refrigerators and televisions to the amount of power consumed when appliances are in “standby mode.” The money saved in the long run by using these appliances is often spent on even more power-sucking gadgets. And if light bulbs cost less to use, why not just leave the lights on longer?

The light-bulb ban is an example of how political coalitions are formed to force regulations on the general public that benefit a few large producers. A recent survey found that six out of every ten Americans are still in the dark about the latest bulb ban. Meanwhile, the dimwitted light-bulb policy just became the law of the land. The lesson here is straightforward: When industry and environmental groups claim that a regulation will solve all problems, consumers beware. It’s probably green cronyism in disguise.

 

[CarBastard]

They made the same change here, they outlawed most conventional incandescent light-bulbs, at least for most consumer uses. Initially I refused the change because I prefered the tone of light they gave vs. the morgue-like tone of light CFL bulbs gave back then. One day, I saw a CFL bulb that lighted like an incandescent one...and turns out they make such a thing. They're called "Warn" light or something like that, but the point is I'm writting this in a room lit by a CFL bulb, I'm significantly reducing the electricity bill, saving money and part of the enviroment because I don't have to change busted bulbs so often...and I can't tell the difference.

Things change, period. A house with incandescent lightbulbs right now would be like buying a new car with carburetors. CFL are better, and EFI is better. Deal with it.

 

[Grayfox]

Some people just can't take it.

It must have been the same when leaded fuel was banned and everyone had to use unleaded.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm significantly reducing the electricity bill, saving money and part of the enviroment because I don't have to change busted bulbs so often...and I can't tell the difference.

And the thousands of jobs lost during a jobs crisis were just a minor side effect to you saving a few bucks and the environment? But those evil capitalists out to take from the poor applaud your aid.

CFL are better,

Unless it is cold, or hot, or mounted to something that moves frequently, or has a dimmer, or a 3-way switch...

Some people just can't take it.

Yes, we tend to be opposed to government force orchestrated by corporate cronies.

It must have been the same when leaded fuel was banned and everyone had to use unleaded.

You are smart enough to know that is blatantly false, but acknowledging that a free market and technological advancements caused leaded fuel to be nearly phased out 20 years before there was a ban wouldn't fit our government knows best world. Hint: leaded fuel was banned in the US in 1995. From my birth in 1979 until now I've only seen a few engines that ran leaded, and you had to buy an additive to put in unleaded fuel because leaded fuel was near impossible to find. When the US government banned leaded fuel it was an unnecessary waste of time and money by politicians just trying to look like they were doing something useful.

Australia's ban took place in 2002.

So odd you would compare incandescent bulb bans to a perfect example of why these things are unnecessary if the new item is actually far superior and more appealing to consumers.

 

[wfooshee]

But leaded fuel was effectively banned in 1975 by the fact that catalytic converters were the only way most manufacturers could meet emissions restrictions. The reduced number of engines over time that required leaded fuel made it economically unfeasible. So the 1995 ban was a big nothing, like you say, but the onset of catalytic converters that drove it was not a "free market," it was a government-imposed restriction.

Back to bulbs, sorry. I have no complaints about current CFLs other than slow starting when cold. The porch lights are useless for several minutes in the winter as they build heat and eventually reach normal brightness. Have not tried LEDs, haven't needed to replace anything.

 

[Jump_Ace]

Grayfox has a handle on this thread.


Jerome

 

[FoolKiller]

But leaded fuel was effectively banned in 1975 by the fact that catalytic converters were the only way most manufacturers could meet emissions restrictions. The reduced number of engines over time that required leaded fuel made it economically unfeasible. So the 1995 ban was a big nothing, like you say, but the onset of catalytic converters that drove it was not a "free market," it was a government-imposed restriction.

Which was a quick and painless switch because of technology developed by an engineer worried about smog 25 years before the government tried to do something about it. Of course, it slightly reduced automobile performance at a time when muscle cars were the thing in the US. Even if you had them guys would take them off. I know guys that do it today, and I know the garages willing to do it. I'm curious where we would be now if the emission standards had taken another five or ten years. Maybe we could have found a better way.

Back to bulbs, sorry. I have no complaints about current CFLs other than slow starting when cold. The porch lights are useless for several minutes in the winter as they build heat and eventually reach normal brightness.

Is that in a Florida winter? If so, try it in a real winter, when the temperatures are well below freezing. Nothing like waiting 15 minutes so you don't slip and fall on ice. In the current cold I've had to wait 5-10 seconds for it to come on at all.

Have not tried LEDs, haven't needed to replace anything.

LEDs are great. In my kitchen, no one can tell which spotlights are halogen and which are LED without examining the bulbs closely.



But I really want to know why people are readily willing to let governments come in and tell them how to light their home and many other things. To quote my senator, "I'm pro-choice on lightbulbs."

 

[BobK]

But I really want to know why people are readily willing to let governments come in and tell them how to light their home and many other things. To quote my senator, "I'm pro-choice on lightbulbs."

That's the key question right there. If people prefer CFL's/LEDs over incandescent, fine. I generally prefer to use CFL's over incandescent myself. But I strongly object to the government telling me I must use them.

 

[niky]

Leaded fuel causes brain damage. And, as I pointed out in a post not long ago (One year ago, to be exact), there is a positive correlation suggesting a strong causal effect in exposure to leaded gasoline fumes at birth leading to criminal behaviour in adulthood.

Lead is/was banned due to some very concrete concerns about toxicity and health.

Incandescents are being banned simply because there are "greener" bulbs. Greener bulbs, like CFLs, which, incidentally, just happen to contain some very toxic pollutants. (And it's not just a case of proper disposal. CFLs can and do blow-up, leaving mercury residue everywhere...)

That's like banning cathode-ray tube TVs, non-induction electric stoves, gasoline cars(!) and AA-powered digital cameras. All of the above are certainly MUCH cheaper* up front than the alternatives and a whole lot less energy efficient and more polluting, but market forces are pushing them towards extinction, anyway.

Except for gasoline cars. But then, unlike light bulbs, you can get away with using a much smaller, much less powerful car, to do what you need to do.

When cheap LED lights become prevalent, that will spell the end for incandescents, without government help. Hell, hardly anybody buys incandescents here, even without a government ban, as high electricity rates have conditioned people over the years to buy only flourescents or CFLs.

I have not seen an incandescent outside of the hospital for several years**. And our country didn't need a ban on them for that to happen.

*Yes, LCD/LED TVs are now cheaper than CRTs... and good luck finding any AA-powered digital camera that's not a toy.

**Okay, some poorer families still use them. But with electricity rates as they are here, a CFL will pay back for itself within less than a year over an incandescent.

 

[Exorcet]

Some people just can't take it.

And that's a good thing as FoolKiller pointed out.

This ban is idiotic, this coming from a 100% LED bulb buyer. New bulbs may be better, that doesn't mean people need to use them if that isn't there preference. This situation is no different from passing a law that forces people to give up their right of choosing what car to buy.

 

[Danoff]

One of the many things that bugs me about this is the potential for it to get in the way of progress. With incandescents offering a cheap alternative, LEDs prices have to stay low to compete. With incandescents gone, now LEDs only need to be more attractive than CFLs, a far easier task.

Removing an option from the market means that the demand for that product will go elsewhere - this increases demand for the next best thing, LEDs. With increased demand comes an increase in price. This is economics, there is no way around it. The only hope needs to be that there is some economy of scale, and that more mass production of LEDs brings the price down in the end as LED manufacturers undercut each other. But make no mistake, in the short term this is an upward pressure on LED prices.

As a fan of LEDs, I don't like that. I find it a step backward.