Incandescent Bulb Banning Discussions - Merged

[BB]

Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs

I guess the Livermore Centennial Light Bulb shall be replaced with a CPFL. NOW!

Just think of how having a 24x7x365 web cam pointed at one of these CPFL babies will show the world that California is 100% behind saving energy.

Forget that California State continues to write laws that exempt State and City Vehicles from many of the state's environmental laws (example below is Delaware State Law--California has done things like this too--could not find with a quick search).

Reg. 43 Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards
Statutory Authority: 7 Delaware Code, Section 6010 (7 Del.C. §6010)
​

Notwithstanding sub-section 2.1, the requirements set forth in this section do not apply to:

2.2.1 A heavy-duty diesel engine intended for use in an urban bus;
...
2.2.5 An emergency vehicle; or
2.2.6 A military tactical vehicle or equipment.

Wake me when the laws that apply to us also apply to our dear leaders.

-Bill

 

[bitslammer]

Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs

That bill will be D.O.A. as soon as the legislators' wives get wind of it
and contemplate putting on their makeup under fluorescent lights.

What I would support (and has more likelihood of passing):
Expand the rebate currently on CFs to include LED lightbulbs, and eliminate sales taxes on both.
A higher rebate could be justified on LEDs due to their better lifetime and lack of waste disposal issues compared to CFs.
Tax incandescents at 25% to fund the above, and increase that each year.

I think the small rebate/tax idea would work. I have 3x20W (maybe 25W they're bright) CFs in my bathroom and my girlfriend loves the light they provide so much I had to install more in "her" bathroom. She felt that the tone they give off was much warmer and similar to sunlgiht.

 

[KDOG3]

Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs

*
Did you know…?

If every American family switched to CFLs, we could save 31.7 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity every year - enough to light about one third of all U.S. households for an entire year.

A 20-watt compact fluorescent lamp used in place of a 75-watt incandescent will save about 550 kilowatt-hours over its lifetime.

Saving 550 kilowatt hours means 50 Gallons of oil*not burned, which means that 1,300 pounds of carbon dioxide and 20 pounds of sulfur dioxide will not get into the atmosphere.

Theres' no doubt about those points, but the point is the government shouldn't be trying to do my thinking for me when it comes to what kind of light bulb I use in my own home. What a waste of tax money...

 

[Datasaurusrex]

Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs

Won't work in my home. I pop florescent bulbs within 2 to 6 months of usage (not heavy usage).

Seems like they don't like my house wiring. Low voltage halegon do the same thing.

So it's incandescent for me

 

[yuandrew]

Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs

Even though I've gone to mostly CFLs and T8 fluorescents; there are still places where I find it's more practical using normal incandescant bulbs. There's one in my fridge and another in the back of the oven which are probably only on for 5-30 seconds at a time when I'm getting something out of the fridge and I don't think there's a CFL that can take 450 degrees of heat without melting. The bathrooms are still incandescant as well as some lights in the hallway and a bare bulb in the garage over the laundry area. Then there's the garage door opener itself but the light only stays on for maybe 5 mins after I open or close the door.

BTW, California's Legislator isn't the only people with this idea. There have been plans by the British government to ban incandescant bulbs (and also eliminate 'standby' functions on consumer electronics so now your TV is truely 'off') as well.

 

[greg_in_canada]

Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs

There would have to be lots of exceptions allowed: appliance bulbs since a CFL wouldn't survive your oven or work well in your fridge.

And there a lots of locations in houses that are switched on and off many times per day and aren't left on for long periods. That kills the lifetime of CFLs and would make the per-hour cost higher than incandescents due to having to replace the bulbs several times per year.

Greg

 

[Pax et Lux]

Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

Teststrips: good point. I did some very brief research.

I think the pro-CFL argument goes that, while CFLs contain mercury, generating electricity from fossil fuels to power incan bulbs causes even more mercury pollution.

I'm not qualified to come down one way or another, other than observe that CFLs make little sense in places burning renewable energy.

 

[Schnotts]

Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs

They should ban SUV's, that would save some energy.

 

[Illum]

Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/151115

double post?

Banning light bulbs...blah like thats going to happen....im sure they can improve the light bulb, banning it altogether sounds ridicolous, its been this civilizations primary source of illumination

 

[SEMIJim]

Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

What about the landfill problems that throwing away a million or more regular lightbulbs away would cause

You expect legislators to consider the wider ramifications and unintended consequences of their feel good ideas? Perish the thought! Why, if they did something so outrageous as to actually think through some of their hair-brained schemes, we wouldn't get such wonderful new ideas as moving daylight savings time around. (The impact of which is beginning to look a bit like y2k all over again. Good going, Congress!)

 

[curtis22]

Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

Soylent Green is Tuesday.

 

[tebore]

Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

peacefuljeff said it best. take a bow.

the road to hell is paved with best intentions, I'm sure this idea looks great to this California lawmaker, but he is not seeing the big picture.. which is as follows:

I'm all for better technology, but I want to be free to choose whether I should have to use it or not. supply and demand. The solution to the power problem is not necessarily to use less, but to find a way to make more in a cleaner fashion, allowing the people to choose to buy more power and use it as they please.

You think we'd have cars with Catalytic convertors, fuel injection and low horse power numbers if it wasn't for regulations? If it wasn't for the OPAC strike in the 70s and government mandates on safety you think cars would be the way they are now? Or Construction of houses, you think we'd still have asbestos in buildings if governments don't mandate that we don't use it, the hell with the fact it's a carcinogen it was cheap and worked well. Sometimes the government has to step in ESPECIALLY in a place like the US where people have the technology but won't use it because it's an inconvience. You try living like the way you do in Japan and they'll call you irresponsible.

 

[LightBen]

Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

Aside from considerations of personal liberty, there are a couple of problems with this proposed legislation:

1.) CFL lamps, especially the cheaper ones, have been known to generate considerable RFI (Radio-Frequency Interference). As a licensed amateur radio operator, I am wary of anything that may cause a proliferation of RFI-generating consumer equipment.

2.) CFL ballasts often have horrible power factor figures, so the wattage figure stamped on the bulb is often misleading. Any circuit containing a reactive component--an inductor or capacitor--"stores" energy that is not available to do work at the load. In other words, the CFL might be rated 25W, but would likely require the power company to generate more than that amount of power to drive it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor for a more technical explanation.

 

[Topper]

Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

You can take my incans when you pry my cold dead fingers from around them.
Topper

 

[mdocod]

Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

Tebore

The point was not that we should be free to use EVERYTHING with no personal accountability or responsibility, the point was that with each new advancement, we will be forced to develop regulations.. the end result is that we will all be driods, lever pullers, dead weight. We can prevent this from happening one of 2 ways.... eliminate technology, or eliminate double digit IQ lawmakers and judges.
excessive regulations are where we loose our freedom. There is another lawmaker in California trying to make it unlawful to use any form of physical punishment on young children. A slap to a child's wrist to stop him/her from doing "wrong" could result in a year in prison if someone sees it. It's that same kinda bogus narrow minded lawmaking activity that destroys free will. I don't know if slapping a 2 year olds wrist is right or wrong, but I certainly don't want to tell someone whether they can or can't, needs to be their decision how to raise their kids. Appropriate levels of control in the form of laws will always be necessary.
Yes, I appreciate that car manufactures are forced to manufacture clean burning cars.. That's regulating a company, and doesn't have as profound an effect on the freewill of average Joe, because average Joe has many available options (exercise free will) that could yield him his very own SMOG DEATH MOBILE! Also... considering the percentage of emissions that cars account for, regulating the auto industry is a much more logical step than regulating light bulb usage in homes.

I have CFLs and T8s around the house too, their awesome for certain things.. trying getting a tube to light up out in the garage when it's -20F... yet another thing unaccounted for in this idea. Shouldn't have even made the press, shouldn't have made it mast the drawing board.... somehow, it did... sad...

 

[jtr1962]

Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

There are definitely some applications where CFLs are a bad fit (those which require frequent starting, occupancy sensors, cold weather, the need for dimming). In light of this at this point in time such legislation is probably not a good idea. I like AndyTiedye's scheme of increased rebates and no sales taxes on CFLs and LEDs better. All that being said, when the time comes where we have viable incandescent replacement technology (likely in the form of LEDs) which is dimmable, has good color rendering, is available in several color temperatures, can deal with frequent starting/cold weather, and costs about the same or less than today's CFLs, then banning incandescent bulbs will be a great idea. I'm against forcing people to use new technology if there are still drawbacks. However, when the new technology is better in every way and they still insist on using old technology with definite drawbacks for whatever arcane reason then it's time to force the issue. That time is not now. I'd say the way LED technology is advancing it will come by about 2010 or so. Perhaps a better idea would be the AndyTiedye's idea coupled with a phaseout of incandescent bulbs by 2010. This would give the public a chance to try the new technology bulbs at lower cost so they can be used to them by the time they can't buy incandescent bulbs. Legislation may well be moot anyway. LEDs might become so good and so cost effective that the marketplace will dictate that incandescents are no longer sold except at very specialized stores.

 

[martytoo]

Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Earth, Venus.....

Mercury ! You dopey legislators!!

This is so dumb. Fluorescent bulbs contain mercury. They will pollute the environment. There is no legal necessity to recycle these if used in the home in most states. There is no oversite with regard to recycling them in most states. My recycling center will not take them!


These feckless dopes need to go back to their 9th grade science class and learn a thing or two before proposing this dreck.

And even in states that provide help in reclycling what is the penalty for throwing the bulbs in the trash? Maybe we would get better recycling adherence if the penalty was sitting in the gallery of the state legislature, listening to these geniuses?


http://www.bethlehemlamprecycling.com/

http://www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/page/Recycling_FluorescentLampsFAQs?OpenDocument

http://www.productstewardship.net/productsMercuryFluorescent.html

 

[FlashCrazy]

Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

Just another reason why California is so fiscally broke. I've always wondered why that this state, with it's huge tax base and tourism, seems to be in shambles. The roads absolutely stink, even in the capital! They're probably worse around the capital, for that matter. Then when fishing one day I understood. I saw what I usually see every time I go fishing...Dept. of Fish and Game officers hiding out with binoculars watching to make sure people aren't catching under/oversized fish. Huh??? How much does that cost us?? Every piece of wilderness is filled with officers. Planes flying overhead, helicopters hovering, Bureau of Land Managment, bureau of this, bureau of that. I was driving through an industrial area and saw this gleaming, glass-windowed building...I thought "Man, that's the nicest building I've seen...must be some mega-rich company." Nope, some CA Dept. of something or other...sheesh. We have people sitting around trying to come up new rules and regulations all the time. Knowing CA, it'll cost more to enforce them than they'll save. There's more EPA regs here than probably any other state, yet it still has about the worst pollution..go figure. Sorry to vent, guess I need to shut-up and just move away from this state!

 

[SemiMan]

Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

I think I talked about respect in a another thread ... It applies here too.

I think for practical reasons, outlawing incadescent bulbs is unrealistic.

However, global warming is real. Certain politicians may want to bury their head in the sand and pretend it is not real for political or financial gains, but I think most people with common sense can understand that dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is eventually going to catch up with us.

For the respect of everyone on this planet and our children and the children who come after them, our generation has a duty to do something about global warming. Unfortunately, fusion power, or even CO2 capture is not in the cards in the short term. Hence, the only thing we can do is lower our energy usage. Again it is our duty as part of the greater community of people on this planet.

Let's be realistic, people often do not do what is right. How many of the people reading this post download music without paying for it? It is illegal. It is not right, but because it is "easy" people do it.

So back to bulbs. It is unrealistic technically to eliminate incandescents. The fixtures we have in our homes just do not support it. Heck, the smallest dimmable flourescent I can even buy at Home Depot is huge. However, that can be changed and LED lamps will offer more packaging alternatives.

So what could be done... stealing some thoughts from others:

- Heavily tax incandescent bulbs. Start it low and increase quickly so that it becomes painful to use incandescent bulbs.

- Incentives, tax breaks, etc. to buy compact flourescent and other energy efficient sources

- After a period of time, except for special purposes where incandescents are the only viable technology, ban all Lighting Fixtures that are not compatible with high efficiency light sources. Since new fixtures would support compact flourescents or other high efficiency light sources, that would further incentivize the move away from incandescents which by now would be getting pretty expensive.

Just a thought.......


Semiman

 

[FlashCrazy]

Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

Space is a vacuum right?...or mostly... Why can we make a hole in our atmosphere and seal it with a valve. Open the valve to suck out the CO2 to a nice level...ahh, all back to normal.

Shhhhh...don't yell at me...I know the CO2 is diluted into the rest of the atmosphere!