Sale of Incandescent and CFL Bulbs banned

[ABMax24]

Home depot had 60 watt equivalent LED bulbs on sale the other day for 99cents.

We changed all our lightbulbs when we moved into this house 6 years ago, the builder put incandescent in. I've had a total of 5 bulbs fail in that time period. 2 were Phillips that failed within months, Phillips make up the majority of the bulbs in our house and the rest of those have been good since. The other 3 were EcoSmart brand from Home Depot, failure rate of those stands at about 25% after 6 years.

Other factor here is in hot climates where AC is used most of the year, incandescant bulbs dump heat into the living space that the AC most remove, using yet more electricity. That 100Watt incandescent pulls another 30watts in the AC unit to remove the heat it produces. Which is an argument also for LED backlight TV's over the old Plasma type, significantly less power use and heat output with the LED models.

 

[woodgeek]

Imagine that! Who knew?

I have a hard time imagining just where you got so danged smart .....all of that knowledge....yet here you are on a wood burning site day in/day out for the past 15 or so years arguing with any member that has an opposing view to yours. Certainly, retirement held larger plans than that?

Imagine how this site is presented to the newest members....like the poor guy from Wisconsin that must feel so welcomed!

When I was a kid, my Dad would get exasperated and say 'You'd argue with the Pope!' I haven't met the Pope yet, and he seems like a nice guy, but I'm sure we'd find some things to discuss.

C'mon now yooper. I doubt that you are actually confused by this at all.

All of the policies that you have mentioned, from CFLs to LEDs, to electric yard tools to wind turbines and solar panels and EVs all have one goal... reducing CO2 emissions. They all obviously do that if you look at the math, bc they are more efficient at providing a useful output (light, transportation) from a given unit of energy OR they make energy in the first place, while producing far less CO2 than fossil methods.

I'm not sure when better efficiency, less air pollution and saving money became bad things.

You might have heard about this thing called the Paris Accord... where nearly all the nations of the world got together and decided to reduce their carbon emissions drastically. A lot of companies and engineers and politicians have been working towards this goal for a long time.

You can be skeptical that global warming is a problem (especially if you insist on using only the evidence of your own eyes) but your argument that all the above tech is rolled out for no obvious purpose, and capriciously, is absurd. Green tech is rolled out to reduce CO2, that is and has always been its purpose, whether you agree that is a worthwhile goal or not.

Why exactly do you think all this green tech is developed, if not to reduce CO2? To make you exasperated? To fleece you? To give you something to laugh and shake your head at? A grand conspiracy to destroy the US economy and replace it with a socialist utopia?

Enlighten us.

 

[woodgeek]

Other factor here is in hot climates where AC is used most of the year, incandescant bulbs dump heat into the living space that the AC most remove, using yet more electricity. That 100Watt incandescent pulls another 30watts in the AC unit to remove the heat it produces. Which is an argument also for LED backlight TV's over the old Plasma type, significantly less power use and heat output with the LED models.

My nephew is moving and just gave his Mom his big 4k LED TV, to replace her 20 yo plasma HD unit. That beast you could feel the heat on your face when you stood in front of it .

I've been telling her she needed to upgrade for awhile, but she spent so much back in the day she was quite attached. Now that she has made the switch she is all 'The picture is absolutely amazing!' and I said, ofc, it 4K.

She pays $0.33 per kWh.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

What is the efficiency of the steam turbines used for power generation?

I see it stated that electric motors are more efficient than ICE motors. Given that ICE motors is about 30% of the fuel’s energy for work, that shouldn’t be a hard benchmark to beat provided the source of that electricity is efficient enough to account for line losses from the source to the point of use.


For the record, I think most people are all for a cleaner environment and more efficiency. I think the disagreement comes in when there are legitimate questions on whether the subject in question is a better choice or is ready for mass adoption (everybody has different circumstances) and they feel it is being shoved down their throats. Being told to blindly jump on the bandwagon has led to many catastrophic events in the past.

 

[woodgeek]

For the record, I think most people are all for a cleaner environment and more efficiency. I think the disagreement comes in when there are legitimate questions on whether the subject in question is a better choice or is ready for mass adoption (everybody has different circumstances) and they feel it is being shoved down their throats.

Absolutely. But are EV's being forced down people's throats? Is rooftop solar? LEDs are being forced on people, but there seems to be broad consensus that they work well and are lower TCO. I would argue that by the time (decades from now) that ICE vehicles get banned, a similar consensus will be in place... and it if isn't the 'bans' will be postposed. Just as the incandescent phase-out/bans were postponed many times.

ICE vehicle production peaked in 2017. EVs are now 10% of global sales. None of that is because of bans (anywhere) or because people are forced to buy them... its bc 10% of people have decided that EVs are better for their use case.

Can you provide some examples of:

Being told to blindly jump on the bandwagon has led to many catastrophic events in the past.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

Choose your dictator, lol. Rarely has that ended well. And that goes for our elected officials dictating too.

 

[woodgeek]

Choose your dictator, lol. Rarely has that ended well. And that goes for our elected officials dictating too.

We can agree that Dictators are bad. 100%. They also make terrible public policy... like the 'Great Sparrow War'.

But what if good sound, public policy (aimed at reducing pollution, increasing public health, reducing the cost of living, etc), informed by science, engineering and medicine is merely labelled as 'dictatorial' by it opponents? I can think of many examples of that....

For one example of a useless technology being forced on an unwitting population, how about cardiac stents? We do a million of these procedures a year on sick and vulnerable people, and complications will kill at least 10,000 of them every year. And the stents neither prolong life, prevent future heart attacks, nor relieve pain. That seems like a bigger issue to get cranked up about than CFL or LED bulbs, and yet we never hear about it?

 

[Ashful]

I still haven't come across an LED bulb that outlasts an incandescent. It's possible that with their lower energy usage, there's still a net positive ROI, but anyone claiming they last 25x longer than an incandescent or halogen is clearly buying different bulbs than me. I won't repeat the lamp post story again, it's been told at length twice in the archives of this forum, but in my experience the lifetime of LED bulbs has been equal to or less than equivalent incandescents, and way lower than halogen.

Outdoor applications are a huge problem, where the heat generated by incandescent or halogen is desirable to dry the fixture and contacts in damp or condensing environments. Then there's the whole "CRI snob" (TM Woodgeek) problem.

I will be surprised if any ban on incandescent bulbs is ever complete or effective, so I'm not too worried, but it is an annoyance. The amount of energy they save or use is of much less interest to me, than these other issues.

 

[LogCabinFever]

Absolutely. But are EV's being forced down people's throats? Is rooftop solar? LEDs are being forced on people, but there seems to be broad consensus that they work well and are lower TCO. I would argue that by the time (decades from now) that ICE vehicles get banned, a similar consensus will be in place... and it if isn't the 'bans' will be postposed. Just as the incandescent phase-out/bans were postponed many times.

ICE vehicle production peaked in 2017. EVs are now 10% of global sales. None of that is because of bans (anywhere) or because people are forced to buy them... its bc 10% of people have decided that EVs are better for their use case.

Can you provide some examples of:

When you plan to ban something, I would characterize it as shoving it down someone’s throat. It’s when the government tells you what’s in your best interest and gives you no other option.

Renewable/EV Programs should be based on incentives, not penalties. That being said, much of the incentives do currently exist and are a good thing.

LEDs are objectively better all around than incandescents, as long as life cycle is at least the same. The gap is less with CFLs but LEDs seem to still come out on top. It’s my observation that incandescents/CFLs will naturally fade out if the QA is in place for LED infrastructure and price continues to decline, not really necessitating bans. The current Achilles heel for LEDs: they range in quality far too much. Perhaps UL testing can refine this?

Is solar a wise option? For many people yes. For others, perhaps not. Cost/benefit analysis is more dicey here. Incentives must play a large role here to push solar over the top. To my knowledge, no penalties exist here for noncompliance, which is good. I would not say solar is forced.

At this point, it cannot be clearly argued that EVs have the upper hand. Yes power to weight is much better than ICE. We could argue the environmental impact of both till we are blue in the face. When it comes down to it, what really hurts the EV argument is convenience and infrastructure. Will it get there? Possibly yes, but you don’t accomplish that by taking ICE away from people as the great state of CA is doing. People need to be convinced in their own mind and sales currently say they aren’t convinced and aren’t even close to being convinced. Coercion creates backlash. History proves that with the obvious example being the founding of the USA.

Truly superior technology and alternative fuels will prevail if they are the clear winners, not by threatening. Historically, every technology (that I can think of) has progressed this way. Why the change now? To save the world from falling into the dumper? If that’s the case, first world countries are the last place we should be focusing.

 

[bholler]

Truly superior technology and alternative fuels will prevail if they are the clear winners, not by threatening. Historically, every technology (that I can think of) has progressed this way. Why the change now? To save the world from falling into the dumper? If that’s the case, first world countries are the last place we should be focusing.

I will say I agree with this partly. Yes superior tech/fuels will prevail in general. But when the large well established tech/fuel has the money and power (as well as lots of govt funding as well) Its going to be very difficult for the new alternative to gain a footing.

 

[woodgeek]

At this point, it cannot be clearly argued that EVs have the upper hand. Yes power to weight is much better than ICE. We could argue the environmental impact of both till we are blue in the face. When it comes down to it, what really hurts the EV argument is convenience and infrastructure. Will it get there? Possibly yes, but you don’t accomplish that by taking ICE away from people as the great state of CA is doing. People need to be convinced in their own mind and sales currently say they aren’t convinced and aren’t even close to being convinced. Coercion creates backlash. History proves that with the obvious example being the founding of the USA.

I still want to know where these places are that are banning ICE vehicles and punishing ICE drivers. Talking about a ban on new vehicles starting in 2035 is neither a ban of ICE vehicles (today), a ban of NEW ICE vehicles (today) nor a punishment of ICE drivers. When I go to California, I see a bunch of huge ICE powered SUVs driving around, just like everywhere else. CA is taking them away from people? Really?

If somebody passes a law banning bacon in 2035... how does that really effect bacon eaters? I would chuckle and say 'Sure, as if!' It doesn't. Its performative and stupid. If there are no bacon eaters n 2035, the law is unneeded. If most people still eat bacon in 2035, the ban will get postponed. This is the way these things actually work in practice, taking the incandescent ban as an example, which started being discussed more than 20 years ago.

 

[stoveliker]

When you plan to ban something, I would characterize it as shoving it down someone’s throat. It’s when the government tells you what’s in your best interest and gives you no other option.

Renewable/EV Programs should be based on incentives, not penalties. That being said, much of the incentives do currently exist and are a good thing.

I agree to some extent. Though I think that setting standards (as in lumens per Watt) is a reasonable governing approach. Even if this essentially means a ban on (wholly inefficient) incandescent bulbs.

LEDs are objectively better all around than incandescents, as long as life cycle is at least the same. The gap is less with CFLs but LEDs seem to still come out on top. It’s my observation that incandescents/CFLs will naturally fade out if the QA is in place for LED infrastructure and price continues to decline, not really necessitating bans. The current Achilles heel for LEDs: they range in quality far too much. Perhaps UL testing can refine this?

To my understanding UL testing pertains to safety, not quality.
I think the problem so far has been that many LED mfgs (brands) popped up, did poorly, and died. Over time the market will gravitate towards the better (sufficient?) quality ones, as there will be less "pop up and die" brands, and people don't have to gamble which LED will have a desired lifespan and which don't, because the brands that are on the market will stay there longer. We (as in Ashful ) learn then what works in a particular situation and what (which brand) does not.

At this point, it cannot be clearly argued that EVs have the upper hand. Yes power to weight is much better than ICE.

Is that so? EVs are much heavier than ICE cars due to the battery. It's not right to compare the engine only...
Small appliances (e.g. battery chainsaws) may be lighter, but then their battery life until recharging is poor too.
But for cars, I don't know what it's true.

 

[NHWS]

I still haven't come across an LED bulb that outlasts an incandescent. It's possible that with their lower energy usage, there's still a net positive ROI, but anyone claiming they last 25x longer than an incandescent or halogen is clearly buying different bulbs than me. I won't repeat the lamp post story again, it's been told at length twice in the archives of this forum, but in my experience the lifetime of LED bulbs has been equal to or less than equivalent incandescents, and way lower than halogen.

Outdoor applications are a huge problem, where the heat generated by incandescent or halogen is desirable to dry the fixture and contacts in damp or condensing environments. Then there's the whole "CRI snob" (TM Woodgeek) problem.

I will be surprised if any ban on incandescent bulbs is ever complete or effective, so I'm not too worried, but it is an annoyance. The amount of energy they save or use is of much less interest to me, than these other issues.

I haven't tried to track the details. 25x incandescent doesn't match my overall experience. I'm seeing somewhere between 6x and 8x. Some outliers have been around 1x; a few others around 12x+. At PNW KWH costs, lighting has never been much of a cost issue. Changing from incandescents to CFLs and then LEDs has not caused a change in usage pattern, with one exception: there are a few lights in very hard-to-reach locations. With incandescents, once the bulbs burned out (a few months after the fixtures were installed as part of a remodel) those lights were unused for many years. The bulbs were finally replaced with LEDs 4 or 5 years ago, and have been in near-daily use since with no failures.

Overall energy efficiency is not as simple as bulb wattage. PNW weather is generally cool. Indoor CFLs and LEDs generate less heat, which means more heat needed from HVAC sources for most of the year. But heat generated in ceiling fixtures is less efficient than heat provided closer to the floor.

Hard to see much non-political value in a complete ban. If they are less useful, sales volumes will drop, making them more expensive, further reducing volumes. As @Ashful says, there are still some use cases where the additional heat is a good thing, at least until/unless very small low power space heaters are commonly available.

 

[bholler]

Pa is banning sales of regular incandescent bulbs in July but specialty bulbs will still be available. But honestly I haven't seen a regular incandescent bulb in a store for many years so I don't see the issue

 

[Ashful]

Pa is banning sales of regular incandescent bulbs in July but specialty bulbs will still be available. But honestly I haven't seen a regular incandescent bulb in a store for many years so I don't see the issue

I'll admit I spent less than a minute searching for an answer, but I haven't yet seen whether clear A17 halogens will fall under the "specialty bulb" exception, or not. Most of my outdoor fixtures take A17 halogens, and while I could easily switch them over to candle bulbs with medium base, those consume 40% more watts per lumen.

It'd be amusing if this ban causes a net increase in energy usage for some customers who are already above average.

 

[SpaceBus]

Great, another member that likes to argue endlessly. And a site moderator at that!

I'll try to explain it.

Some of the states are outlawing incandescent and cfl bulbs thus mandating the use of LED bulbs to save power.

Some states are also outlawing the use of small ICE....lawn mowers, chainsaws, etc etc.....also to save power.

Any of the power saved will not offset the power consumed by the push for everyone to switch to EVs and the power needed to charge them.

So, we're using less power (for the LED bulbs) but using more power for the EVs.

This is an absolute false equivalency. The point of the bulbs isn't just to reduce energy usage, it's to reduce carbon usage. The two are linked but not the same. Outlawing ICE outdoor power equipment will also reduce carbon emissions, even though more electricity will be use. Even using fossil fuels to power the batteries or extension cords is more efficient, less carbon, than using ICE.

Even changing all the cars from ICE to EV will reduce carbon emissions and even energy usage overall. ICE are very inefficient compared to EV and a lot of energy us used in the refining of fuels. You have to look at the whole picture, you're missing the forest for the trees.

 

[woodgeek]

I still haven't come across an LED bulb that outlasts an incandescent. It's possible that with their lower energy usage, there's still a net positive ROI, but anyone claiming they last 25x longer than an incandescent or halogen is clearly buying different bulbs than me. I won't repeat the lamp post story again, it's been told at length twice in the archives of this forum, but in my experience the lifetime of LED bulbs has been equal to or less than equivalent incandescents, and way lower than halogen.

Outdoor applications are a huge problem, where the heat generated by incandescent or halogen is desirable to dry the fixture and contacts in damp or condensing environments. Then there's the whole "CRI snob" (TM Woodgeek) problem.

I will be surprised if any ban on incandescent bulbs is ever complete or effective, so I'm not too worried, but it is an annoyance. The amount of energy they save or use is of much less interest to me, than these other issues.

Not to get sidetracked, but I assume that your outdoor fixture must be getting either very damp (like condensing damp) or very hot (solar heating?) or both (at different times). I would think that LED filament bulbs would be better able to handle both of these conditions, since (I think) all the electronics are hermetically sealed inside the glass envelope, and the filaments are rated to work well at elevated temps.

Have you tried filament bulbs?

 

[gthomas785]

Not to get sidetracked, but I assume that your outdoor fixture must be getting either very damp (like condensing damp) or very hot (solar heating?) or both (at different times). I would think that LED filament bulbs would be better able to handle both of these conditions, since (I think) all the electronics are hermetically sealed inside the glass envelope, and the filaments are rated to work well at elevated temps.

Have you tried filament bulbs?

I personally have regular supermarket LED bulbs in all my outdoor fixtures, some of which are in pretty harsh conditions (full sun, exposed to rain & snow) and none of them have failed or given me problems so far.

 

[bholler]

All of my exterior lights are led fixtures now.

 

[NHWS]

All of my exterior lights are led fixtures now.

For the past several years all of my exterior lights have been LED bulbs in non-LED-specific fixtures. There's enough wildlife around here that the sensors in the fixtures turn the lights on a few times every night. None of those bulbs have failed. PNW weather is cool and high humidity for most of the year. It appears that the heat from incandescents is not significant for at least some outdoor fixtures.

 

[Ashful]

Not to get sidetracked, but I assume that your outdoor fixture must be getting either very damp (like condensing damp) or very hot (solar heating?) or both (at different times). I would think that LED filament bulbs would be better able to handle both of these conditions, since (I think) all the electronics are hermetically sealed inside the glass envelope, and the filaments are rated to work well at elevated temps.

Have you tried filament bulbs?

I've tried LED's in several different outdoor locations, with varying results:

1. The infamous "lamp post" event is nine 25-watt bulbs (or their LED equivalents) with candelabra base, in brass with glass fixtures on PVC posts. They stay dry inside, no rain gets in, but moisture does condense on the glass inside in fall/winter/spring. Whether that moisture comes in thru the bottom vent holes, or up thru the wiring hole in the post, I don't know. But bottom line, it's a humid but not wet environment. I don't think solar heating would be sufficient to exceed the operating temp (what... 120°C - 160°C?) of any components in an LED bulb.

As you can see, this fixture is wearing the last of the LED bulbs I had tried in them, and it is an LED filament type. But of the 9 LED's I had bought and tested, this is the only one still alive.



(Excuse the cobwebs, it's been about 51 weeks since my annual pressure washing of everything, I'm due next week.)

2. My barn cupola, completely dry location, but probably warm in summer. Of course, the bulb is never lit when it's daylight, it's on automation to only light after sunset, so I'm only up against its storage temperature, not operating temperature, when considering the warm environment on summer days. I usually grab whatever ~40 watt equivalent LED I have laying in the cupboard from other failed "CRI snob" experiments, and put it in this fixture, when the prior one burns out. I get a few years out of them, maybe even almost 2x incandescent lifetime, but nowhere NEAR the quoted 25x incandescent lifetime.



3. I've replaced three outdoor soffet R14's with LED's, and those seem to be lasting much longer than anywhere else. In fact, now that I think about it, it's been several years since I've replaced one.



I suspect the lifetime issue could be a function of location as much as brand, as they were all name brand / high dollar bulbs. But saying they last 25x longer, while ignoring the shortcomings that ONLY LED's seem to suffer in these various locations, is about as dishonest as marketing can get. In those lamp posts, the incandescents actually last 2x - 4x longer than the LED's. In the cupola, I'd guess they're somewhere between parity and 2x for the LED. The soffets, we're probably somewhere better than 2x, TBD.

 

[stoveliker]

I have a light next to my front door with a daylight sensor. It sees direct afternoon sun, and howling winter winds. My air temps may be slightly less extreme than yours (coastal here, but I've seen 5 F).
The bottom of the clear glass fixture is open (wall mount). Humidity can be high (as in fog/clouds rolling in from the Sound quite often - I'm on a cliff). It's been almost 5 years and working.

That does make me think that *enclosed* fixtures may be part of the issue. My humid weather makes me think that heat (sunlight) is more likely the culprit.

If you have a spare wifi temp sensor, put one in the lamppost and see the max it sees in sunny summers?

 

[woodgeek]

I've tried LED's in several different outdoor locations, with varying results:

1. The infamous "lamp post" event is nine 25-watt bulbs (or their LED equivalents) with candelabra base, in brass with glass fixtures on PVC posts. They stay dry inside, no rain gets in, but moisture does condense on the glass inside in fall/winter/spring. Whether that moisture comes in thru the bottom vent holes, or up thru the wiring hole in the post, I don't know. But bottom line, it's a humid but not wet environment. I don't think solar heating would be sufficient to exceed the operating temp (what... 120°C - 160°C?) of any components in an LED bulb.

As you can see, this fixture is wearing the last of the LED bulbs I had tried in them, and it is an LED filament type. But of the 9 LED's I had bought and tested, this is the only one still alive.

View attachment 311813

(Excuse the cobwebs, it's been about 51 weeks since my annual pressure washing of everything, I'm due next week.)

2. My barn cupola, completely dry location, but probably warm in summer. Of course, the bulb is never lit when it's daylight, it's on automation to only light after sunset, so I'm only up against its storage temperature, not operating temperature, when considering the warm environment on summer days. I usually grab whatever ~40 watt equivalent LED I have laying in the cupboard from other failed "CRI snob" experiments, and put it in this fixture, when the prior one burns out. I get a few years out of them, maybe even almost 2x incandescent lifetime, but nowhere NEAR the quoted 25x incandescent lifetime.



3. I've replaced three outdoor soffet R14's with LED's, and those seem to be lasting much longer than anywhere else. In fact, now that I think about it, it's been several years since I've replaced one.



I suspect the lifetime issue could be a function of location as much as brand, as they were all name brand / high dollar bulbs. But saying they last 25x longer, while ignoring the shortcomings that ONLY LED's seem to suffer in these various locations, is about as dishonest as marketing can get. In those lamp posts, the incandescents actually last 2x - 4x longer than the LED's. In the cupola, I'd guess they're somewhere between parity and 2x for the LED. The soffets, we're probably somewhere better than 2x, TBD.

Hate to say it, but I think I want to blame the bulbs. The last name brand bulbs I bought (maybe 8 years ago) were Cree's and they were beyond junk. I switched to buying random cheap bulbs from China on Amazon, and they have had better lum/W ratings than anything name brand (like in a hardware store) and I have some that have logged >10,000 hours without a hiccup.

Try buying cheaper bulbs!

 

[tlc1976]

I replaced the 175w barn light with a 30 or 35 watt LED after rewiring the fixture. Similar output. Been on there either 1.5 or 2.5 years, I forget. Still working fine. Comes on every night no matter what the temperature. We get everything from 20% to 100% humidity. -20F to 100F.

 

[NHWS]

Hate to say it, but I think I want to blame the bulbs. The last name brand bulbs I bought (maybe 8 years ago) were Cree's and they were beyond junk. I switched to buying random cheap bulbs from China on Amazon, and they have had better lum/W ratings than anything name brand (like in a hardware store) and I have some that have logged >10,000 hours without a hiccup.

Try buying cheaper bulbs!

Agree that the more expensive bulbs, esp. Crees, seem worse than some of the cheaper ones. None of the Crees I bought years ago lasted much longer than incandescents. Cheap bulbs from Costco have done much better.