Incandescent outlaw?

[Ashful]

Perhaps not the "greenest" post ever made on this forum , but I know you guys will have good info on this.

I've heard the long-delayed incandescent bulb ban goes into effect this week. Anyone know the details? We live in an old house artfully lit with literally hundreds of low wattage incandescents, and many antique lighting fixtures and lamps. They all look like hell with CFL's and LEDs installed. Do I need to go stock up? Find a black market?

 

[Jags]

If your plan is to keep using incandescents - stock up. The 60W is gone after the first of the year. I am sure others are to follow.

 

[woodgeek]

The 100Ws were gone Jan 1, 2012. The 75Ws were gone Jan 1, 2013. The 60 and 40W's are gone Jan 1, 2014 (actually after existing stock on shelves is sold)

For the traditional frosted edison bulbs, there are multiple sources of LED bulbs that are functionally equivalent and similar in light color and bulb appearance for $10 or less.

I know you are really asking about decorative bulbs for use in antique fixtures. I entirely expect many 'decorative' incandescent bulbs, i.e. candelabra shapes, bare filaments, etc, will be available until we are dead and gone. I could be wrong, it has happened before.

You might want to stock up anyways, since I am sure the price will be higher when they are 'designer' items.

 

[woodgeek]

A little googling has confirmed that appliance and decorative bulbs are not affected.

http://www.mysuncoast.com/news/loca...cle_2b1daa16-70dd-11e3-a4af-0019bb30f31a.html

Also learned that Phase Two in 2020 requires 45 lumens/W, which will effectively ban Halogen incandescent bulbs (which are not banned currently).

 

[maple1]

Hundreds?

 

[woodgeek]

Hundreds?

Did the new mileage standards make driving 'classic cars' illegal? Of course not. No one is choosing to commute 100 miles a day in a Model T.

If folks want to burn incandescents or heck, gaslights, for a decorative lighting effect in a beautiful historic home, the net impact is a drop in the bucket.

IMO, 'Green' should never be about limiting freedoms, shaming, forgetting history or shivering in the dark (unless you're into that sort of thing).
Rather, it should be about carefully crafted public policy that results in giving people cost-effective, energy efficient options, and education into those options.

 

[Slow1]

I have confidence that someone out there will see the opportunity to capitalize on the need for good decorative bulbs that are LEDs. From a tech point of view this isn't likely to be all that difficult; bringing the designs to mass market may take a bit more time/cost. There is a market for such things - I imagine someone will likely come out with a very small platform base LED that can be fitted with different diffusers to allow flexibility of use. (and restore economy of scales to the base so that costs are brought down). Just a matter of time.

 

[maple1]

Did the new mileage standards make driving 'classic cars' illegal? Of course not. No one is choosing to commute 100 miles a day in a Model T.

If folks want to burn incandescents or heck, gaslights, for a decorative lighting effect in a beautiful historic home, the net impact is a drop in the bucket.

IMO, 'Green' should never be about limiting freedoms, shaming, forgetting history or shivering in the dark (unless you're into that sort of thing).
Rather, it should be about carefully crafted public policy that results in giving people cost-effective, energy efficient options, and education into those options.

Oh, I agree.

I just have a problem comprehending hundreds of lights. I couldn't begin to think where to put more than about 50 around our place.

Except at Christmas time, that is.

 

[semipro]

'Green' should never be about limiting freedoms

I agree with the overall point of your response but disagree with this statement.
Given the freedom to do so there are many that would still be using DDT, leaded gas, ozone depleting compounds, etc.

 

[woodgeek]

I agree with the overall point of your response but disagree with this statement.
Given the freedom to do so there are many that would still be using DDT, leaded gas, ozone depleting compounds, etc.

Indeed. Sometimes we just have to stop doing genuinely stupid stuff, when we learn better. On the Energy/Carbon front, I think there are so many **negative cost** low hanging fruit options out there that implementation is not a struggle. In the future, there may be harder decisions.

 

[semipro]

In the future, there may be harder decisions.

Yeah, a lot harder than the choice of a light bulb.

 

[Slow1]

It really is too bad that individuals in our society are unable or unwilling to evaluate their personal decisions in the context of society as a whole. Of course the flip side of this is the group who influence policy in such a way as to limit individual choices in the name of "better for society" when there really isn't a clear benefit (i.e. attempts to limit the size of drinks sold in NY). Unfortunately this ends up being a political decision.

I personally happen to believe that replacing incandescent bulbs with higher efficiency LED or other technology is a good thing for society as a whole. With increased production of these higher efficiency bulbs we should see improvements in quality, variety, and costs. I'm not entirely sure that the outright banning of these really is the way to do it, but I believe the swap over is inevitable anyway so it is likely to simply speed things up. There is a cost to the adoption of new technology, but I don't see anyone suffering in the dark because they can't afford to comply with this change.

I laugh when I read about people stockpiling cases of incandescent bulbs as I imagine they are spending as much as it may cost to swap over to LED's etc (assuming they swap out as their current bulbs fail) and may prefer the new tech in a few years anyway leaving them with a pile of unwanted bulbs.

 

[midwestcoast]

Woodgeek & Slow1 have it.
The bulbs you're talking about won't be phased out any time soon. I wouldn't bother hoarding bulbs.
Long before the EPA looks at the minor impact of these bulbs, LED (or some other tech) will have advanced to the point where the issue is moot. After all the
"regular" bulbs are replaced, the decorative bulbs will be the remaining growth market & research dollars will move there. That's what my 8 ball says anyway...

 

[semipro]

I laugh when I read about people stockpiling cases of incandescent bulbs as I imagine they are spending as much as it may cost to swap over to LED's

I find this humorous also as stated in a somewhat parallel post here regarding energy savings.
We're not laughing at you though Joful,

 

[midwestcoast]

Just to clarify, Incandescents were not and are not banned or outlawed. EPA set an efficiency standard that is being phased in. Basically it says bulbs (40-100 watts) must be at least 25% more efficient at turning electricity into light.

 

[Slow1]

There will be losers to be sure. When we did our addition I had high efficiency florescent fixtures installed in our family room. They were great - much better than incandescent for efficiency etc. However, after 4 years one of them wigged out. The ballast started to fail and I discovered that they were rather specific to that unit. While I could purchase a compatible replacement it was more expensive than a new fixture. In the end I replaced all three of these lights with more standard units (designed to hold 3 'normal' bulbs) and installed with LED bulbs in place. Now they burn even less power and put out better light. If I could go back and re-plan that series of events I'd have stuck with conventional fixtures as I certainly lost out in having to swap after about 4-5 years. I'm sure this sort of thing will happen as we move forward, but it is part of the market finding balance eh?

 

[maple1]

I personally happen to believe that replacing incandescent bulbs with higher efficiency LED or other technology is a good thing for society as a whole.

I have a serious issue with this lightbulb thing.

How good is it for society as a whole to legislate use of bulbs with mercury in them? How CFLs got the 'green light' in the face of that little item is a bit beyond my comprehension.

I also have issues with other 'green' things that really aren't very green at all, but I'll stop there.

 

[Slow1]

Just to clarify, Incandescents were not and are not banned or outlawed. EPA set an efficiency standard that is being phased in. Basically it says bulbs (40-100 watts) must be at least 25% more efficient at turning electricity into light.

Technically true, but how does one get this improvement with incandescent technology? If this isn't possible then it is effectively a ban on the tech.

 

[Slow1]

I have a serious issue with this lightbulb thing.

How good is it for society as a whole to legislate use of bulbs with mercury in them? How CFLs got the 'green light' in the face of that little item is a bit beyond my comprehension.

I also have issues with other 'green' things that really aren't very green at all, but I'll stop there.

I have to agree with the mercury concern. I'm hoping that LEDs don't have this issue although I'm sure they will present new ones of their own. Nothing seems to come without a cost eh?

In the end a choice may have to be made to choose the lesser of two evils; question is who gets to make that choice? Individual consumers or legislatures (who presumable represent the will of the people as a whole).

 

[woodgeek]

Technically true, but how does one get this improvement with incandescent technology? If this isn't possible then it is effectively a ban on the tech.

The number chosen was designed to allow halogen incandescents to pass during phase 1.

 

[woodgeek]

I personally happen to believe that replacing incandescent bulbs with higher efficiency LED or other technology is a good thing for society as a whole. With increased production of these higher efficiency bulbs we should see improvements in quality, variety, and costs. I'm not entirely sure that the outright banning of these really is the way to do it, but I believe the swap over is inevitable anyway so it is likely to simply speed things up. There is a cost to the adoption of new technology, but I don't see anyone suffering in the dark because they can't afford to comply with this change.

Recall that these LED bulb products did not exist when the law was passed in 2007. Without the 'bans' in the US and overseas, the amount of R&D spending would have been a lot lower, and we likely would not have the products that we have today.

 

[woodgeek]

How good is it for society as a whole to legislate use of bulbs with mercury in them? How CFLs got the 'green light' in the face of that little item is a bit beyond my comprehension.

I went all-CFL in 2000. I have no concerns about the mercury in them at all. I'm no chemist, but if I broke a bulb the mg's of metallic mercury vapor would vent to the atmosphere. How much would I actually breathe in? Of course it doesn't disappear when its out in the environment, but at that point we can still argue that the energy savings from the CFL reduces the 100 tons of mercury released every year in the environment from coal combustion by a far larger amount.

And in 13 years, I have broken 2 and recycled about 40 bulbs.

 

[Pruning@trunk]

Just another example how environmentalists limit of freedoms and reach in our pocket books in order to save Mother Earth. So instead of paying .50 cents for a bulb I will have to pay $10 for a bulb. This is progress!

If I want to be energy efficient I will just turn off my lights, I don't néed congress to help me with this.

You people are just busy-bodies!

 

[semipro]

I have a serious issue with this lightbulb thing.

How good is it for society as a whole to legislate use of bulbs with mercury in them? How CFLs got the 'green light' in the face of that little item is a bit beyond my comprehension.

I also have issues with other 'green' things that really aren't very green at all, but I'll stop there.

In the case of fluorescent bulbs the overall release of mercury to the environment is reduced with their use because so much of our electricity comes from coal burning.
Life cycle cost/benefits should always be considered when determining how "green" something is.
Unlike CFLs some well-intentioned "improvements" turn out to be boondoggles instead. MTBE in gasoline and the production of ethanol from corn come to mind.

 

[Slow1]

Just another example how environmentalists limit of freedoms and reach in our pocket books in order to save Mother Earth. So instead of paying .50 cents for a bulb I will have to pay $10 for a bulb. This is progress!

If I want to be energy efficient I will just turn off my lights, I don't néed congress to help me with this.

The financial argument is interesting - if you consider the cost of the energy being saved during the lifetime of the replacement bulb it will more than make up for the $9.50 differential in initial cost. Unfortunately few folks look at total lifecycle cost when making purchase decisions. The other side of this is that the cost of our energy goes beyond how much we each pay - the infrastructure etc has a cost associated with it. Even without any "green" arguments involved, it simply makes sense for the community as a whole to not build out more generation and distribution infrastructure if we can slow or reduce our demand instead. Total lifetime cost of this new investment is likely to be high and drive energy prices ever higher, which then affects all individuals.

Does our "congress" know better than individuals? Doubtful, but in this area it seems a strong argument can be made that it is in fact in the best interests of both individuals and society as a whole to improve and adopt this technology.