# Incan Bulbs Banned in 4 Yrs. Stock Up Now !!



## LuxLuthor

Well, similar to the small toilets mandated by the US Govt. years ago to save water, today's energy bill signed into law by Bush bans incan bulbs in 4 years.

Not that I mind the idea of saving energy and all that, but if you have recessed lighting, or lamps that will not take the fluorescent bulbs, you are out of luck.

I plan on stocking up over the next month on all the household incan bulbs I would need for the rest of my life.


----------



## jugg2

They make CFLs that work in recessed lighting. I have some.


----------



## LukeA

jugg2 said:


> They make CFLs that work in redessed lighting. I have some.



I have seen these. It's not like CFL manufacturers will allow a segment of their market to go unsatisfied.


----------



## jtr1962

LuxLuthor said:


> I plan on stocking up over the next month on all the household incan bulbs I would need for the rest of my life.


For now the ban will be on sales. Should they ever decide to enact a ban on _use_ this won't help you. Seriously, in four years time LED replacements will exist which will do everything an incandescent can do, but better. The free market isn't going to leave a big void. Why would you even _want_ to continue using incandescents under those circumstances? My guess is you'll be wasting space and money stocking up. Well, maybe you can sell the bulbs to a museum or something.

And is changing fixtures to accomodate new lighting really such a big deal? I changed out the T12 fixtures several years ago to accomodate the new, more efficient T8 tubes. The payback period on that was probably only a few years, and the light quality is way better (no flicker, better color rendering). I'll be happy to put up LED-based fixtures in another ten years or so.


----------



## LuxLuthor

LukeA said:


> I have seen these. It's not like CFL manufacturers will allow a segment of their market to go unsatisfied.



It is naive to assume that Govt. legislative types bowing to pressure from various lobby groups would care one bit for the ramifications on all those who will be subjected to their domination.

I assure you that I have 25-30 recessed, decorative, bathroom, spotlight, and other types of lighting that no bulbs exist to match my fixutres. The house has some very old custom cabinets & woodwork that do not allow the current 75W fluorescent bulbs to fit. I have tried them all, and they are not the same dimensions as incan bulbs. In addition, I just took a photo of some of the other fixtures, lamps, etc. that require these types of bulbs which have no replacements. I don't care now that I know they passed this lame restriction, I'll stock up now enough to last 50 years.

(thumbnail)


----------



## LuxLuthor

jtr1962 said:


> For now the ban will be on sales. Should they ever decide to enact a ban on _use_ this won't help you. Seriously, in four years time LED replacements will exist which will do everything an incandescent can do, but better. The free market isn't going to leave a big void. Why would you even _want_ to continue using incandescents under those circumstances? My guess is you'll be wasting space and money stocking up. Well, maybe you can sell the bulbs to a museum or something.
> 
> And is changing fixtures to accomodate new lighting really such a big deal? I changed out the T12 fixtures several years ago to accomodate the new, more efficient T8 tubes. The payback period on that was probably only a few years, and the light quality is way better (no flicker, better color rendering). I'll be happy to put up LED-based fixtures in another ten years or so.



I use fluorescent bulb replacements in the few lamps they will fit. If you have an older home with antique lamps & custom wood/cabinets built around incan fixtures, it is naive to assume all the new LED/flurescent bulbs will work. I assure you they won't. In addition, I have not yet seen an LED that I like using over the color and other features of an incan.

It would require at least $40-60,000 to take down all the custom wood work...hoping that it does not get damaged in the process, since much of it is no longer available...just to replace light sockets to accomodate new bulbs. Other locations have sockets that are plastered in place that would literally need to be destroyed and re-plastered. 

Again, I recommend that people who need custom incan bulbs stock up now....for the same reason I bought two extra toilets before the small water flushing restriction went into effect. My plumber offered me $1200 each for them last year which I declined. They will never be able to ban the use of bulbs that people have inside their homes.


----------



## 2xTrinity

It looked like most of the efficiency improvements specified in the bill were only incremental. Usage of Infrared-Coated Halogens should be able to fulfill the efficiency requirements in most cases. Since those actually _are_ still incandescent, but simply more efficient, they will still be able to tolerate dimming circuits, excessive heat, and such that would exclude LED drop-ins from working in many places.


----------



## LuxLuthor

2xTrinity said:


> It looked like most of the efficiency improvements specified in the bill were only incremental. Usage of Infrared-Coated Halogens should be able to fulfill the efficiency requirements in most cases. Since those actually _are_ still incandescent, but simply more efficient, they will still be able to tolerate dimming circuits, excessive heat, and such that would exclude LED drop-ins from working in many places.



Yeah, but similar to gun control, once the "Al Gore Lunatics" draw first blood in a new area like this, they keep adding to the restrictions....and ignore rational critics such as this other headline story today. They will categorize people like me as "Light Bulb Deniers."

Again, it's no problem for me as long as I know the latest restrictions. I'll soon have all the incan bulbs I'll ever need.


----------



## jtr1962

LuxLuthor said:


> If you have an older home with antique lamps & custom wood/cabinets built around incan fixtures, it is naive to assume all the new LED/flurescent bulbs will work. I assure you they won't. In addition, I have not yet seen an LED that I like using over the color and other features of an incan.


And you don't think these problems will be solved in four years time? Four years is an eternity in the LED industry. Think what we had four years ago and what we have now. I think in 2003 state of the art for a Luxeon was about 20 lm/W, and many came with an awful green tint. Now LEDs are mostly pure white, with neither a blue nor a yellow tint, and 4 to 5 times as efficient. We'll solve any remaining color issues (mostly color rendering of deep reds) by then I'm sure. And by definition LEDs are small. As their efficiency creeps up, it should be possible to make screw-in replacements not much larger than the socket.

Also, you're the exception, not the rule. Few people have thousands of dollars of custom woodwork built around incandescent sockets. Most people just have a junction box in the ceiling which can accomodate any type of fixture. Most people have crappy fixtures which need to be replaced every few years anyway.

I can think of one reason to stock on bulbs, though. There will likely be people who refuse to switch to anything else, indeed won't even look at anything else because in their mind "incandescent is better". I suppose these are the same type of people who thought candles were better when incandescent first came out. Those are the people I'll be able to sell my stock of light bulbs to for $50 a piece around 2020.

While we probably won't ban _use_ of incandescent, for now anyway, I can easily think of ways to discourage their use. The power company can occasionally send a few voltage spikes lasting several seconds down the line. Most modern equipement will cope just fine. Indeed, a lot of equipement these days can run off anywhere from 85 to 265 VAC. The incandescent bulbs however would be zapped instantly by a 260V surge. Don't laugh. If I were running a power company and were faced with the highly unpopular choice of building a new power plant, or getting people to cut back on their usage, I might well do exactly such a thing. IIRC there are also other types of voltage signatures which would zap incandescents without affecting anything else.

BTW, my guess is LED technology will progress so fast that in four or five years time there won't be any incandescents on store shelves, ban or not. We're already there efficiency-wise. Color is not perfect, but acceptable for general lighting (indeed much nicer than incandescents and most fluorescents). Cost is still a factor, but $0.20, 1000 lumen emitters in 5 years will be entirely possible given Moore's law. Under those circumstances, it's really hard to see anybody continuing to mass produce incandescents.


----------



## NeonLights

This is the first I've heard of this, and it is rather disconcerting. About half of our lighting is on dimmer switches, which don't work with the CFL bulbs. We have started switching the lights we can to CFL, but I'd like to retain the dimmer switches for a variety of reasons. I'll be stocking up as well unless a reasonable dimmer-friendly replacement bulb comes out in the next year or three.


----------



## jtr1962

LuxLuthor said:


> Yeah, but similar to gun control, once the "Al Gore Lunatics" draw first blood in a new area like this, they keep adding to the restrictions....and ignore rational critics such as this other headline story today. They will categorize people like me as "Light Bulb Deniers."


Why does global warming have to enter into any debates on banning incandescents? I can think of other good reasons like avoiding the need to build more power plants, reducing air pollution (not CO2 but the other pollutants which make the air unpleasant to breate and give us cancer), reducing landfill from short-lived incandescents, avoiding wars to secure more fossil fuels, or even just saving money. Everytime I discuss things like this, or subjects like EVs, with people I purposely avoid the words "global warming". Sooner or later though they enter the discussion, and I'll mention that I never bought it up. You don't have to believe in global warming to see the need to cut back on energy usage, or switch to alternatives. However, someone always seems to bring it up.


----------



## LuxLuthor

I recognize your points, and realize the push for LED's. I still think it is naive to assume everything will be worked out for people who have custom and antique lighting....and there are hundreds of thousands....likely millions of people who do. 

There has not yet been any indication that LED colors are going to be acceptable to me, despite the improvements over the last 5 years. There is also no likelihood that some of the custom bulbs I showed in image will be accomodated. Why would they care about trying to accomodate all the old bulb styles when Big Brother has mandated their obsolescence?

Just like the 1.6 gallon per flush toilet mandate, they don't work as well as my 3.5-4 gallon/flush models. Same with shower head water restrictors which I removed. Some new mandated restrictions just do not work as well for all people...but no consideration is given for exceptions.

*Edit*: I purposely didn't bring up the GW topic, per se. My point in posting the link is to illustrate that legitimate people who have reasonable exceptions, challenge the legitimacy of various issues, or just have differences of opinion--are not recognized and respected. Now that you mentioned it however, it (GW) is fueling irrational discussions and unnecessarily expensive actions....mostly why this law was passed and signed. Believe it or not, there are many aspects and spinoffs of the energy discussion which do not stand up to critical scrutiny. The GW issue just interjected a pretentious and silly layer of obfuscation on an otherwise inordinately complex issue. For example, I reject the notion that there has been any war fought to secure adequate fossil fuel.

I can make many cases for using nuclear, coal, wind, wave, solar, geothermal, domestic and offshore oil exploration that would give more sources of energy than we could ever use. It is mostly the environmental restrictions that have us buying oil from the rest of the world, rather than harness energy reserves from our own backyard. 

Restricting the sale of incan light bulbs however, makes these people feel good....like it is a real long term solution.


----------



## jtr1962

LuxLuthor said:


> Why would they care about trying to accomodate all the old bulb styles when Big Brother has mandated their obsolescence?


It's called the free market. If there's a demand, someone will make it. Indeed, I'll be happy to produce small quantities of just the types of bulbs you pictured once LED technology is a little more mature in a few years time. As for color, I've little doubt we can get very close to incandescent if that's what you want.



> Just like the 1.6 gallon per flush toilet mandate, they don't work as well as my 3.5-4 gallon/flush models. Same with shower head water restrictors which I removed. Some new mandated restrictions just do not work as well for all people...but no consideration is given for exceptions.


Ditto on the toilets so I just flush after one or two wads of paper so it doesn't back up. Probably still saves water overall compared to using 4 gallons the times when all you're flushing is urine. Also ditto on the showerhead restrictors. The slow water flow doesn't rinse well. I prefer my regular ~60 GPM shower head.


----------



## LuxLuthor

jtr1962 said:


> It's called the free market. If there's a demand, someone will make it. Indeed, I'll be happy to produce small quantities of just the types of bulbs you pictured once LED technology is a little more mature in a few years time. As for color, I've little doubt we can get very close to incandescent if that's what you want.



It's been a fun back and forth discussion with you, and I most certainly appreciate your willingness to accommodate my custom incand lighting needs. Like I already said, within a week I will have all the incand light bulbs I will ever need for the next 50 years stored in my basement.



jtr1962 said:


> Ditto on the toilets so I just flush after one or two wads of paper so it doesn't back up. Probably still saves water overall compared to using 4 gallons the times when all you're flushing is urine. Also ditto on the showerhead restrictors. The slow water flow doesn't rinse well. I prefer my regular ~60 GPM shower head.



My answer is to buy a toilet & shower head that works.  

I subscribe to what the Al Gore's & John Edwards' of the world actually do in their own lives, as opposed to what they hypocritically tell everyone else to do in theirs.


----------



## jtr1962

LuxLuthor said:


> It's been a fun back and forth discussion with you, and I most certainly appreciate your willingness to accommodate my custom incand lighting needs. Like I already said, within a week I will have all the incand light bulbs I will ever need for the next 50 years stored in my basement.


What if you live longer than that? :nana: Seriously, I've heard it's possible within our lifetimes that aging might be cured, or greatly slowed. It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that you or I will live to see the year 3000.



> I subscribe to what the Al Gore's & John Edwards' of the world actually do in their own lives, as opposed to what they hypocritically tell everyone else to do in theirs.


I don't take a thing either of them say seriously. When Al Gore gives up his private plane, lives in a normal-sized house, takes a subway to work, and does a few other things he preaches I might start listening to him.


----------



## AndyTiedye

I predict that LED replacements for every conceivable incan used in home lighting will be available much sooner than 4 years from now.

BTW, most of the new toilets have 2 levels of flush. If you hold the handle down it dumps about twice as much water as if you release right away.


----------



## LuxLuthor

AndyTiedye said:


> I predict that LED replacements for every conceivable incan used in home lighting will be available much sooner than 4 years from now.
> 
> BTW, most of the new toilets have 2 levels of flush. If you hold the handle down it dumps about twice as much water as if you release right away.


You can predict all you want. I predict I'll be using my incands. 

Whoops, after checking the toilet I just used, I have 7 gallon per flush models, as are the two backups in the basement. 

I thought they were 3.5 GPF, but I think new ones are all the way down to 1.6 GPF....typical of these more Govt. regulation types....get their way with 3.5 GPF restrictions, then push for more...down to 1.6 GPF....probably a few more years and they will be insisting on only cruise ship type vacuum toilets, and recycling your pee.

Let's take a look-see at what Gore & Edwards are using in their mansions.


----------



## LukeA

LuxLuthor said:


> You can predict all you want. I predict I'll be using my incands.
> 
> Whoops, after checking the toilet I just used, I have 7 gallon per flush models, as are the two backups in the basement.
> 
> I thought they were 3.5 GPF, but I think new ones are all the way down to 1.6 GPF....typical of these more Govt. regulation types....get their way with 3.5 GPF restrictions, then push for more...down to 1.6 GPF....probably a few more years and they will be insisting on only cruise ship type vacuum toilets, and recycling your pee.
> 
> Let's take a look-see at what Gore & Edwards are using in their mansions.



In my house, there are two toilets that use 1.6 gpf each, and I would bet that they flush more powerfully than your 7 gpf toilet. Because there's also a 6 gpf Eljer upstairs that is easily outclassed by the other two. 

Efficiency is not necessarily a bad thing.

BTW, nice straw man argument against my previous post.


----------



## LuxLuthor

LukeA said:


> In my house, there are two toilets that use 1.6 gpf each, and *I would bet that they flush more powerfully than your 7 gpf toilet*. Because there's also a 6 gpf Eljer upstairs that is easily outclassed by the other two.
> 
> Efficiency is not necessarily a bad thing.
> 
> BTW, nice straw man argument against my previous post.



How much would you like to wager on the toilet flushing? I do get out and have chances to see and use these new 1.6 GPF models....and they are inferior. I was talking to my plumber in August who hears more complaints and service calls over them than anything else he is called about. He has a lot of people who are waiting for him to find some of the old toilets. 

I have no problem with efficiency if it actually has a good result for all involved. I'll worry about the water in my toilet and shower when I see a total ban on watering lawns, and shutting down decorative fountains throughout the country.

Straw man? Show me the replacement CFL's for the few bulbs in my photo. Show me where they will put the ballast in these size bulbs. Show me why the CFL manufacturer would care about making retrofit lamps for obsolete (incan) fixtures, lamps, recessed custom lighting....especially in face of the new ban. 

Ya gotta do better than tossing out a weak straw quip, my friend. Just like the toilet capacity ban, or the luxury tax imposed on new boats/yachts that lasted just long enough to close all the factories and put all the workers on unemployment before it was repealed....this incan ban is filled with as many problems as potential benefits. It is what governments do--make more problems when trying to fix one.


----------



## brickbat

I'm confused. The first time I checked the original link, the article was written as if the bill had passed. Now, the article says it's "likely to pass".


----------



## LuxLuthor

brickbat said:


> I'm confused. The first time I checked the original link, the article was written as if the bill had passed. Now, the article says it's "likely to pass".



They just have not updated the link. Here is the more current status of it being law.


----------



## Alan B

NeonLights said:


> This is the first I've heard of this, and it is rather disconcerting. About half of our lighting is on dimmer switches, which don't work with the CFL bulbs. We have started switching the lights we can to CFL, but I'd like to retain the dimmer switches for a variety of reasons. I'll be stocking up as well unless a reasonable dimmer-friendly replacement bulb comes out in the next year or three.


 
There are dimmer friendly CFLs now. I installed some a month ago. Not as wide a range, but they do dim and don't blow up. Led lamps on dimmers should work better.

Bans are not a good way to encourage technology and savings, though. Tungsten lamps are just better for some things, such as in the oven, or for heat lamps. Politics and Bans don't make the right answer. CFLs will also be banned soon (most likely) due to the mercury.

-- Alan


----------



## LED_Thrift

LuxLuthor said:


> ...I plan on stocking up over the next month on all the household incan bulbs I would need for the rest of my life.


 
Me too, I'll need about four. Mostly for the light inside the oven. I don't know if there is a reasonable alternative to incan oven lights. This legislation will be a great spur to the development of LED "light bulbs".


----------



## KROMATICS

Lots of paranoia going around yet no one has actually bothered to read the bill.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe




----------



## flownosaj

LuxLuthor said:


>


 
Home Depot has some of the CF candelabra base bulbs, in 7 and 15 watt. Only reason I don't have them in the dining room is that we have a dimmer in there.


----------



## KROMATICS

LED_Thrift said:


> Me too, I'll need about four. Mostly for the light inside the oven. I don't know if there is a reasonable alternative to incan oven lights. This legislation will be a great spur to the development of LED "light bulbs".



_ `(D) GENERAL SERVICE INCANDESCENT LAMP- _

_ `(i) IN GENERAL- The term `general service incandescent lamp' means a standard incandescent or halogen type lamp that--_
_ `(I) is intended for general service applications;_
_ `(II) has a medium screw base;_
_ `(III) has a lumen range of not less than 310 lumens and not more than 2,600 lumens; and_
_ `(IV) is capable of being operated at a voltage range at least partially within 110 and 130 volts._
_ `(ii) EXCLUSIONS- The term `general service incandescent lamp' does not include the following incandescent lamps:_
_ `(I) An appliance lamp._
_ `(II) A black light lamp._
_ `(III) A bug lamp._
_ `(IV) A colored lamp._
_ `(V) An infrared lamp._
_ `(VI) A left-hand thread lamp._
_ `(VII) A marine lamp._
_ `(VIII) A marine signal service lamp._
_ `(IX) A mine service lamp._
_ `(X) A plant light lamp._
_ `(XI) A reflector lamp._
_ `(XII) A rough service lamp._
_ `(XIII) A shatter-resistant lamp (including a shatter-proof lamp and a shatter-protected lamp)._
_ `(XIV) A sign service lamp._
_ `(XV) A silver bowl lamp._
_ `(XVI) A showcase lamp._
_ `(XVII) A 3-way incandescent lamp._
_ `(XVIII) A traffic signal lamp._
_ `(XIX) A vibration service lamp._
_ `(XX) A G shape lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002 with a diameter of 5 inches or more._
_ `(XXI) A T shape lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002) and that uses not more than 40 watts or has a length of more than 10 inches._
_ `(XXII) A B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S, or M-14 lamp (as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002 and ANSI C78.20-2003) of 40 watts or less.'; and_

_ (B) by adding at the end the following:_
_ `(T) APPLIANCE LAMP- The term `appliance lamp' means any lamp that--_

_ `(i) is specifically designed to operate in a household appliance, has a maximum wattage of 40 watts, and is sold at retail, including an oven lamp, refrigerator lamp, and vacuum cleaner lamp; and_
_ `(ii) is designated and marketed for the intended application, with--_
_ `(I) the designation on the lamp packaging; and_
_ `(II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as being for appliance use._


----------



## LukeA

LuxLuthor said:


> How much would you like to wager on the toilet flushing? I do get out and have chances to see and use these new 1.6 GPF models....and they are inferior. I was talking to my plumber in August who hears more complaints and service calls over them than anything else he is called about. He has a lot of people who are waiting for him to find some of the old toilets.



I would wager plenty on the toilet flushing. In the three years that that toilet has been in (very regular) use, I have had to use a plunger on it exactly once, as opposed to at least once or twice per month with the 6 gpf model it replaced. 

I am talking about this toilet. Well, a production sample from the previous generation to the linked models.


----------



## Sub_Umbra

I can't believe some here are talking about the *free market.* Wrong. This has *absolutely nothing* to do with the free market. The *free market* wanted incans yesterday. They want them today and they will still want them tomorrow -- and they vote with their wallets. No group of elitest doddering dunderheads in DC who have never created a product can ever hope to emulate the free market -- they may be able to cram bad ideas like the CAFE standards down some throats but then that hasn't really been very successful in terms of adoption. The same is true of this most recent ban.

Politicians can't lead the free market around by the nose -- _it's the other way around._ Most of the solutions wistfully suggested to this arbitrary ban are just that -- wistful. Politicians in CA have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the last twenty years trying to lead the energy business around by the nose and they have come up with nothing of any import. CA's energy situation would be far better if they had just banked on the *free market* rather than constantly eroding it by throwing money at every half baked idea that came down the pike.

The very notion that politicions may somehow *jump start* the wisdom of the market is completely backward (as CA has demonstrated.) 

When something better than incans comes around *a free market will rush to it* with no coaxing whatsoever. Like the CAFE standards before it this idea of putting the cart before the horse will likely only lead to higher cost and non-compliance.

As far as reading the bill goes I don't see how that's important. If the legislators who vote on the bills don't read them, why should we?


----------



## Alan B

The bill has some interesting and reasonable exclusions, but legislation like this rarely gets it right in the details. 

How many lumens are photofloods? When will cost effective LEDs or CFLs match that?? Maybe they're excluded, hard to tell. I know we've got some "natural light" blue incans that will probably not be allowed under this ban, and there is no equivalent fluorescent or LED that has the right color spectrum for color analysis, and the market is so small it may not be satisfied...

Of course all they have to do to get around this is to change the bulb base and make an adapter...

-- Alan


----------



## KROMATICS

Alan B said:


> Bans are not a good way to encourage technology and savings, though. Tungsten lamps are just better for some things, such as in the oven, or for heat lamps. Politics and Bans don't make the right answer. CFLs will also be banned soon (most likely) due to the mercury.



Keep in mind this is a gradual phase-out starting four years from now in 2012. As I understand it starts with the most common household bulbs (A19) and limits them to 72w for lamps with an output of 1490 to 2600 lumens. It doesn't read to me like incandescents are even banned. It's just that when you get past 1500 lumens or so fluorescents and LEDs are really the only way to go. I read that GE has been working on more efficient incandescents. You can view the bill here and attempt to decipher it. There are lots of exclusions, exceptions, etc. for various bulbs types. They also seem to be pushing manufacturers for more lumens per watt and better color rendering from fluorescents and LEDs and offering prizes for the best designs.


----------



## KROMATICS

Alan B said:


> The bill has some interesting and reasonable exclusions, but legislation like this rarely gets it right in the details.
> 
> How many lumens are photofloods? When will cost effective LEDs or CFLs match that?? Maybe they're excluded, hard to tell. I know we've got some "natural light" blue incans that will probably not be allowed under this ban, and there is no equivalent fluorescent or LED that has the right color spectrum for color analysis, and the market is so small it may not be satisfied...



As you can see in the bill most of the details have yet to be worked out so there is a lot of wiggle room. 

I think this energy bill is a good thing. Sadly, in this country companies tend to sit on their collective asses and only innovate when they are forced to. It's the same for the lighting industry as it is for the automotive industry. Now they don't have a choice. They have to improve their products. Poor babies.


----------



## jtr1962

Sub_Umbra said:


> When something better than incans comes around *a free market will rush to it* with no coaxing whatsoever. Like the CAFE standards before it this idea of putting the cart before the horse will likely only lead to higher cost and non-compliance.


That something has existed for years. It's called linear fluorescents and the market did rush to it, at least the commercial market. Unfortunately for whatever reason they were never pushed in the residential market. It's a pity because they blow CFLs away in terms of lifetime, efficiency, light distribution, even color rendering if you get the right tubes. I've been using linear tubes almost everywhere for years at home. I can't ever see going back to screw-in socket-based fixtures of any kind.

Now there are some things linear fluorescent can't replace, but for most kinds of indoor residential lighting it's just fine. With LEDs able to fill the niches linear fluorescent can't, I think in four years time the market will provide plenty of options. I hope if LED advances as fast as I think it will that new, more aggressive lpw standards will be put into place. I'd really like to see a 100 lpw minimum standard for any type of general lighting.


----------



## Lightfantastic

Another government solution in search of a problem. It's just a hidden increase in your costs. Under what part of the Constitution is the Federal Government granted this kind of power? California has always been nutz.


----------



## Sub_Umbra

jtr1962 said:


> That something has existed for years. It's called linear fluorescents and the market did rush to it, at least the commercial market. Unfortunately for whatever reason they were never pushed in the residential market. It's a pity because they blow CFLs away in terms of lifetime, efficiency, light distribution, even color rendering if you get the right tubes. I've been using linear tubes almost everywhere for years at home. I can't ever see going back to screw-in socket-based fixtures of any kind.
> 
> Now there are some things linear fluorescent can't replace, but for most kinds of indoor residential lighting it's just fine. With LEDs able to fill the niches linear fluorescent can't, I think in four years time the market will provide plenty of options. I hope if LED advances as fast as I think it will that new, more aggressive lpw standards will be put into place. I'd really like to see a 100 lpw minimum standard for any type of general lighting.


You're making my point for me. I have no argument that fluorescents exist, just remember that they evolved out of market demand and *they did not come from government regulation.* They came about because one group thought that they could make money on them *and without any government intervention,* another group thought they could save money by using them. The notion that some politicions who have never run a business, never developed a product, never met a payroll and probably never even bought a fluorescent can somehow streamline *your idea* of what is best for everyone is absurd. Again, the roads are filled with SUVs in spite of the most well intentioned CAFE standard.

Your use of the phrase *"for whatever reason"* speaks volumes about your understanding of where inovation and successful products *really come from.*


----------



## LED_Thrift

Thanks KROMATICS


----------



## VidPro

LuxLuthor said:


> Well, similar to the small toilets mandated by the US Govt. years ago to save water, today's energy bill signed into law by Bush bans incan bulbs in 4 years.


 
(sniff):mecry: (sniff) hey this isnt as funny as it was when i heard Austrailia was banning incadescent, mabey i shouldnt have laughed at them austrailains back then :green:. 

*`(ii) EXCLUSIONS- The term `general service incandescent lamp' does not include*
Dontcha just love Loopholes, i can see the ELITE now , getting a fix on left handed thread adapters , hanging artistic traffic lights up for track lighting, putting plastic plants under thier lamps , hanging silver bowls? from thier ceiling, and having artsy Ships in thier living room and calling it marine. but the funny one is going to be seeing the 40W apliance lights in the candelabras :naughty:
because you know the only people who wont be following along with the plan will be the people who condemned us to it, the rest of us peasants started conversion long ago.

i better get busier with that Acrichie project, before i have to change fixtures.

Hey , Buddy, want a nice deal on a case of incans, ohoh, its the light police run.

how come no change to Automotive lights? is this assuming that a gasoline alternator isnt a energy issue?  and of course lead acid storage is enviromental too.
------------------------

from: http://biz.yahoo.com/usnews/071219/...as_we_know_it.html?.v=1&.pf=banking-budgeting
*I've heard that CFLs don't really last as long as they say. Turning a CFL on and off frequently shortens its life, which is why the government's Energy Star program says to leave them on for at least 15 minutes at a time.* 

brilliant solution to that problem, need the light for 15 seconds? just have it on for 15minutes instead :thinking: makes sence to me, so i am sure it will make sence to congress.


----------



## made in china

Alan B:
LED bulbs do NOT dim like incans, they dim like CFL's. Any electronic bulb will not dim as you would expect a incan on a typical household dimmer. Of course special dimmers can be made for certain lamp technologies.

One thing everyone is missing: America will lose even more jobs as incans become obsolete(d). Most incans are still made in USA, with many made in Mexico and unfortunately some made in China. Of course, USA no longer can manufacture anything these days it seems, and Mexico won't be manufacturing this new leading edge technology either. So, here we go again pushing more American jobs overseas (guess which country: one hint, go to Wal Mart and you'll figure it out). This bill should include legislation that restricts how much of this newer generation product can be made outside of USA. And more specifically, this bill should partially exclude China from producing the majority of this product that will replace incans. Don't you think we throw enough money out of this country already? And most goes into a Communist country's pocket which has no intentions of being our true ally?

Oh wait, no worries. The major corporations like GE and Sylvania will still profit from putting their name on these products, despite the fact they have very few American employees left. And of course, politicians being the businessmen they are won't mind helping to make fellow businessmen (lobbyists) rich(er).


----------



## made in china

VidPro said:


> how come no change to Automotive lights? is this assuming that a gasoline alternator isnt a energy issue?  and of course lead acid storage is enviromental too.



My wife's new car uses LED tail lights and HID headlamps. The LED tails probably use only 5 watts of power on "high" as opposed to at least 54w to more than 108w for typical tail lights. The HID headlights are 35w each compared to halogens which are 55w each.

My car has HID headlights and fluorescent gauge lighting.

I'd say many new cars have a very sophisticated lighting scheme that saves energy. However, I have not noticed much difference at all between whether we run lights all the time or not. Seems the amount of power automotive lighting consumes is fractional compared to the amount of power a typical car engine wastes. And then there is the SUV and large trucks...ahem


----------



## LuxLuthor

LukeA said:


> *I would wager plenty* on the toilet flushing. In the three years that that toilet has been in (very regular) use, I have had to use a plunger on it exactly once, as opposed to at least once or twice per month with the 6 gpf model it replaced.
> 
> I am talking about this toilet. Well, a production sample from the previous generation to the linked models.



Let's see the money. I have NEVER had to use a plunger on my 7 GPF toilets, that's correct NEVER. I don't even know where a toilet plunger is in the house. 

There is plenty of water to cover the waste smell if you like to sit and read a while  and many guests and family over the years have praised how well the toilets work at our house. I wouldn't sell them for $5,000 each--they are that much superior. So enjoy you rinky-dink water saver model all you want.

Again, on this topic....I would begin to think about a more efficient toilet if I saw a TOTAL, NATIONAL BAN ON ALL LAWN WATERING, RUNNING WATER FOUNTAINS, & FILLING OF SWIMMING POOLS....since those are complete vanity luxuries. The proper flushing of human waste is a health and hygiene issue.

There is the same analogy to incan lightbulbs being banned. There are millions of liberals however who think government control, banning, and ever increasing regulation is what should happen in a free country. Look how well that's working on our domestic energy supply. A nuclear power plant can't fart without Ralph Nader slapping them down.

Never mind that signficant forests burn to the ground with untold amounts of air pollution, personal loss, and environmental damage....sensible logging to thin out and reseed is still seen by activists as a devil spawn industry. How's that working out for ya?


----------



## Sub_Umbra

If it was up to the government to make all the decisions about the best method of interior lighting there probably wouldn't be a single whale alive today.


----------



## KROMATICS

Yup, it's all a big conspiracy. Those darn liberals are out to get you. Mega dittos. :nana:

I'm amazed that people on a lighting forum of all places are so against advancing lighting technology. Yes, let's stay in the dark ages as the rest of the world passes us by. Lets do anything and everything we can to destroy the environment. Lets blame the Democrats because as we all know the Republicans have done such a bang up job. :shakehead

As for toilets the first 1.6 gpf models were poorly designed but that was a long time ago. I've never had to use a plunger on any of ours. If you need 7 gpf to flush you need to see a doctor. :sick2:


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe

RE: The entire bill in the link above/\

What sort of self important bloviate writes that stuff? And who can sit still and read it?

I get a warm fuzzy feeling from the last several pages of Clancys "Debt of Honor"....


----------



## Sub_Umbra

KROMATICS said:


> ...I'm amazed that people on a lighting forum of all places are so against advancing lighting technology...


*"There you go again..."* Where did you read that? If you think you saw it on this thread you should quote it *to back up your rhetoric.*

The fact is that *ALL* technological advances in lighting have come about *in spite* of the government, *not because* of it.

For the comprehensionally challenged -- *I like lighting advances* but as the Soviet Union demonstrated so dramaticly, when market forces are taken out of the equation and replaced with the _detached, uninformed opinions_ of politicians, economies and lifestyles and indeed even the environment will suffer more than it would under a market based system. 

One need only look at how much worse on their environment the Sovs were than the Western nations -- even though the West *GREATLY* out-produced them in everything but *misery.* Look at what China is doing to it's environment *today.*

So I'm not at all against _'advancing lighting technology.'_ Far from it. Freedom has advanced lighting technology to where it is right now. _I'm against slowing down lighting development_ by allowing the government to call all the shots. 

If all the government control advocates were right *Cuba* would be the most technlolgically advanced nation on earth.


----------



## KROMATICS

*GE ANNOUNCES ADVANCEMENT IN INCANDESCENT TECHNOLOGY; NEW HIGH–EFFICIENCY LAMPS TARGETED FOR MARKET BY 2010 *

_Re–inventing Edison: New light bulb will provide high–quality light and deliver efficiency comparable to compact fluorescent lamps_
*CLEVELAND (February 23, 2007)*—GE Consumer & Industrial's Lighting division, a world leader in the development of energy–efficient lighting products, today announced advancements to the light bulb invented by GE's founder, Thomas Edison that potentially will elevate the energy efficiency of this 125–year–old technology to levels comparable to compact fluorescent lamps (CFL), delivering significant environmental benefits. Over the next several years, these advancements will lead to the introduction of high–efficiency incandescent lamps that provide the same high light quality, brightness and color as current incandescent lamps while saving energy and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. The new high efficiency incandescent (HEI™) lamp, which incorporates innovative new materials being developed in partnership by GE's Lighting division, headquartered in Cleveland, OH, and GE's Global Research Center, headquartered in Niskayuna, NY, would replace traditional 40– to 100–Watt household incandescent light bulbs, the most popular lamp type used by consumers today. The new technology could be expanded to all other incandescent types as well. The target for these bulbs at initial production is to be nearly twice as efficient, at 30 lumens–per–watt, as current incandescent bulbs. Ultimately the high efficiency lamp (HEI) technology is expected to be about four times as efficient as current incandescent bulbs and comparable to CFL bulbs. Adoption of new technology could lead to greenhouse gas emission reductions of up to 40 million tons of CO2 in the U.S. and up to 50 million tons in the EU if the entire installed base of traditional incandescent bulbs was replaced with HEI lamps. Kevin Nolan, Vice President of Technology for GE Consumer & Industrial, said: "In addition to offering significant energy savings comparable to CFLs, the 21st century version of Edison's bulb provides all the desirable benefits including light quality and instant–on convenience as incandescent lamps currently provide at a price that will be less than CFLs. We and other lighting manufacturers have been aggressive in developing and marketing CFLs. But consumers want more options and we plan to respond to their needs and deliver environmental benefits, too. It's important that we offer consumers a full range of products that meet their personal desire to reduce their negative impact on the environment while preserving their ability to pick the best lighting product for their needs. That's why we are moving aggressively to commercialize these new lamps." GE's announcement was made in conjunction with its decision to support legislation in the EU, the United States and in other areas that would accelerate the introduction of all types of high efficiency lighting products as part of the global effort to promote energy security and reduce emission of greenhouse gases. GE's HEI™ lamps would support attainment of the objectives of the European Commission's Energy Efficiency Action Plan, which aims to reduce Europe's energy consumption 20% by the year 2020. GE has invested more than $200 million in the last four years on the development of energy efficient lighting, including reduced–powered Miser® light bulbs to high–efficiency Par 38 halogen lamps and Energy Smart® compact fluorescent lamps. The US Department of Energy (DOE) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have recognized its contributions to energy efficiency and GHG reductions every year since 2004 with the ENERGY STAR Award, and in 2006 with the ENERGY STAR Award for Sustained Excellence. GE offers 67 ENERGY STAR–qualified lighting products. The environmental benefits of these products sold in 2006 alone will, over their lifetime, reduce consumers' electricity costs by $1.3 billion and prevent 500 million tons of GHG emissions.


----------



## LED_Thrift

VidPro said:


> ...I've heard that CFLs don't really last as long as they say. Turning a CFL on and off frequently shortens its life, which is why the government's Energy Star program says to leave them on for at least 15 minutes at a time.
> 
> *brilliant solution to that problem, need the light for 15 seconds? just have it on for 15minutes instead :thinking: makes sence to me, so i am sure it will make sence to congress*.


 
That's where my EDC comes in. Instead of turning on the CFL in the bathroom, I just use my Jetbeam in ceiling bounce mode for the quick in & out trips.


----------



## Sub_Umbra

KROMATICS said:


> *GE ANNOUNCES ADVANCEMENT IN INCANDESCENT TECHNOLOGY; NEW HIGH–EFFICIENCY LAMPS TARGETED FOR MARKET BY 2010 *
> 
> _Re–inventing Edison: New light bulb will provide high–quality light and deliver efficiency comparable to compact fluorescent lamps_
> *CLEVELAND (February 23, 2007)*—GE Consumer & Industrial's Lighting division, a world leader in the development of energy–efficient lighting products, today announced advancements to the light bulb invented by GE's founder, Thomas Edison that potentially will elevate the energy efficiency of this 125–year–old technology to levels comparable to compact fluorescent lamps (CFL), delivering significant environmental benefits. Over the next several years, these advancements will lead to the introduction of high–efficiency incandescent lamps that provide the same high light quality, brightness and color as current incandescent lamps while saving energy and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. The new high efficiency incandescent (HEI™) lamp, which incorporates innovative new materials being developed in partnership by GE's Lighting division, headquartered in Cleveland, OH, and GE's Global Research Center, headquartered in Niskayuna, NY, would replace traditional 40– to 100–Watt household incandescent light bulbs, the most popular lamp type used by consumers today. The new technology could be expanded to all other incandescent types as well. The target for these bulbs at initial production is to be nearly twice as efficient, at 30 lumens–per–watt, as current incandescent bulbs. Ultimately the high efficiency lamp (HEI) technology is expected to be about four times as efficient as current incandescent bulbs and comparable to CFL bulbs. Adoption of new technology could lead to greenhouse gas emission reductions of up to 40 million tons of CO2 in the U.S. and up to 50 million tons in the EU if the entire installed base of traditional incandescent bulbs was replaced with HEI lamps. Kevin Nolan, Vice President of Technology for GE Consumer & Industrial, said: "In addition to offering significant energy savings comparable to CFLs, the 21st century version of Edison's bulb provides all the desirable benefits including light quality and instant–on convenience as incandescent lamps currently provide at a price that will be less than CFLs. We and other lighting manufacturers have been aggressive in developing and marketing CFLs. But consumers want more options and we plan to respond to their needs and deliver environmental benefits, too. It's important that we offer consumers a full range of products that meet their personal desire to reduce their negative impact on the environment while preserving their ability to pick the best lighting product for their needs. That's why we are moving aggressively to commercialize these new lamps." GE's announcement was made in conjunction with its decision to support legislation in the EU, the United States and in other areas that would accelerate the introduction of all types of high efficiency lighting products as part of the global effort to promote energy security and reduce emission of greenhouse gases. GE's HEI™ lamps would support attainment of the objectives of the European Commission's Energy Efficiency Action Plan, which aims to reduce Europe's energy consumption 20% by the year 2020. GE has invested more than $200 million in the last four years on the development of energy efficient lighting, including reduced–powered Miser® light bulbs to high–efficiency Par 38 halogen lamps and Energy Smart® compact fluorescent lamps. The US Department of Energy (DOE) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have recognized its contributions to energy efficiency and GHG reductions every year since 2004 with the ENERGY STAR Award, and in 2006 with the ENERGY STAR Award for Sustained Excellence. GE offers 67 ENERGY STAR–qualified lighting products. The environmental benefits of these products sold in 2006 alone will, over their lifetime, reduce consumers' electricity costs by $1.3 billion and prevent 500 million tons of GHG emissions.


If that post is a quote from another site, please source it. *CPF Rules & Guidelines #5*

If it is a quote its length exceeds CPF posting guidelines by a factor of 6. *CPF Rules & Guidelines #5*

Your post does a very good job of reinforcing my point that market forces produce the best products in the most timely fashion. GE knew the direction it needed to go *long before* the government stuck it's grubby hand into the pie. Thanks.


----------



## KROMATICS

Sub_Umbra said:


> If that post is a quote from another site, please source it. *CPF Rules & Guidelines #5*
> 
> If it is a quote its length exceeds CPF posting guidelines by a factor of 6. *CPF Rules & Guidelines #5*
> 
> Your post does a very good job of reinforcing my point that market forces produce the best products in the most timely fashion. GE knew the direction it needed to go *long before* the government stuck it's grubby hand into the pie. Thanks.



Here is the link:
http://www.geconsumerproducts.com/pressroom/press_releases/lighting/new_products/HE_lamps_07.htm

The energy bill was formally introduced on January 12th and the GE press release followed on February 23rd so I'm not sure how that proves your point. They had input from the major lighting manufacturers. I think you will find manufacturers selling competitive products before the phase-out even begins.


----------



## James S

Alan B said:


> CFLs will also be banned soon (most likely) due to the mercury.



One would hope not, considering the fact that the amount of mercury in them is quite tiny. I think the figure was that you could make 500 standard 75 watt equivalent models from the amount of mercury that was in a single childs thermometer. That sure doesn't sound very bad.

But there is a lot of completely unwarranted fear of mercury lately. Even with all the CF bulbs in your house, your personal exposure to mercury in the environment is lower now than it has been in recorded history. So nothing to worry about there.


----------



## Sub_Umbra

KROMATICS said:


> ...The energy bill was formally introduced on January 12th and the GE press release followed on February 23rd so I'm not sure how that proves your point...


The press release tends to make my point to anyone who doubts that GE only began working on this line of technology after getting the nod from the government 5½ weeks earlier. I don't believe that for one second. The fact that they issued a press release probably means *that years* ago they decided to commit *millions of dollars* to move in this direction. It's called *R&D.* It is *expensive.* It is *time consuming.* It is *risky.*

If you can source anything that supports your assertion that the idea for this technology only popped into GE's _collective head_ after hearing about it from the government on January 12th and that they (GE) were able to decide on the team, funding and how to pursue this technology all in 5½ weeks -- I'd like to read it.

It is far more likely that GE has been plodding along in this direction for some time and it took them 5½ weeks _just to decide that it was a good PR move to issue a press release at that time._


KROMATICS said:


> ...I think you will find manufacturers selling competitive products before the phase-out even begins.


*Of course they will!* What did you realy expect them to do, just wimper and go out of business? GE actually operates in the real world and they will have to bring compliant products to the fore as soon as possible _just to hold on to as much *market share* as possible._ They must _comply or die_ -- and as soon as possible -- it's as simple as that.


----------



## LuxLuthor

KROMATICS said:


> Yup, it's all a big conspiracy. Those darn liberals are out to get you. Mega dittos. :nana:


Not a conspiracy, just ignorance of reality. Government bans and regulation are rarely effective (with a few exceptions for flagrant abuses). Liberals are not savvy enough to get anyone. They are too busy shooting their own feet. All Hail El Rusbo! :bow: This was the best illustration of the point.



KROMATICS said:


> I'm amazed that people on a lighting forum of all places are so against advancing lighting technology. Yes, let's stay in the dark ages as the rest of the world passes us by. Lets do anything and everything we can to destroy the environment. Lets blame the Democrats because as we all know the Republicans have done such a bang up job. :shakehead


We are not against advances in lighting or any other technology. That you miss that point is astounding to me. We are against the Govt. banning incan lights as part of an energy strategy, with no concern for the downsides. Got it now?



KROMATICS said:


> As for toilets the first 1.6 gpf models were poorly designed but that was a long time ago. I've never had to use a plunger on any of ours. If you need 7 gpf to flush you need to see a doctor. :sick2:


I guarantee that friends, family, and my plumber with "new 1.6 GPF" toilets do not like them, and have frequent episodes of needing a plunger. 

Thank you for your compassionate concern over my gastrointestinal functions, but it's not necessarily that I personally need 7 GPF to send Mr. Hankey on clandestine, subterranean missions (Hideee Hoooo!). Rather, it's that same pesky issue of the government banning these toilets....while I see neighbors all around me using their automated lawn sprinklers running 4-6 hours every night to keep their lawns that pretty green color.

Thank you! Drive through! :wave:


----------



## jtr1962

GE's so-called better bulb is too little, too late. Even if it gets to market by 2010, LEDs and even CFLs will still be way ahead. To me it seems like a last ditch effort to save their lucrative light bulb business.

As for this bill, my guess is with or without this law LEDs will knock both incandescents and CFLs off the shelves in not much more than 5 years. The lawmakers probably already knew this when they wrote the bill but passing it into law _gives them a way to take credit for something which is going to happen anyway_.

As for the government getting involved in the free market, sometimes it's necessary in order to push out an old but profitably technology in favor of something better. It's also sometimes needed to ensure that the products we buy are as safe as we can make them. For example, without laws requiring them cars wouldn't have airbags or even seatbelts. Heck, they probably wouldn't even have brakes. Sure, sometimes legislators make mistakes jumping on the bandwagon pushing the wrong technology. Other times they favor technology sold by their campaign contributors. Fact is the free market doesn't always provide what is needed, wanted, or possible without prodding. There's been a huge, unmet demand for EVs, for example, especially in cities. Why hasn't the market met it? It was technologically possible 20 years ago. It would have been profitable. Maybe loss of spare parts sales? Likewise, companies like GE don't _want_ to stop producing incandescents because the damned things burn out so frequently. IMHO the bill didn't go far enough as far as efficiency requirements. And it should have had a minimum lifetime requirement of perhaps 10,000 hours as well.

One thing unmentioned here about "free markets" is that advertising heavily influences purchase decisions. What consumers buy isn't necessarily the best fit for them, but rather what is advertised the most. Look at disposable batteries. Given how good the low-self discharge NiMH are I'm amazed anyone even wants to buy alkalines any more but they do. Why? The energizer bunny, among other things. You rarely if ever see rechargeables advertised on TV. I've yet to see an ad touting the new low-self discharge technology at all. People can't make rational decisions if information is selectively withheld from them. Sure, there's all sorts of infomation on T5s, T8s, full-spectrum lighting, etc. if you want to spend the time researching it. However, you never see ads for this stuff on TV because GE would rather you buy their incandescent lamps than install a new linear T8 fixture. Ditto for SUVs. People bought them because they were heavily advertised precisely because they were the most profitable vehicles for automakers. They were mislead with stuff like weight is safer in crashes, rather than being told a lighter vehicle is nimble enough to avoid many crashes altogether. I'll be sold on the free market model when the consumer has to be told of all the alternatives to whatever it is they want to buy right in front of them. This would include nice information pamphlets on CFLs and linear flourescents included with every incandescent lamp, or similar pamphlets on rechargeable batteries included with every pack of alkalines. Once the consumer is properly informed, then I trust the free market to work. So many people still say fluorescents flicker, or their color is horrid, or so much other crap about them which just isn't true any more. Well-placed misinformation can easily perpetuate sales of bad products. That tactic certainly worked well to keep EVs off the market, for example.

So if for no other reason this law is good in that it will make people more aware of their lighting alternatives. Honestly, I'm amazed incandescent is still around. Frankly, they're garbage. They burn out way too often, they can start fires easily, especially halogens, the light quality stinks, etc. They're a Mickey Mouse way of making light. In my mind they're nothing but a bad joke. Enough alternatives existed even 20 years ago to more or less make them obsolete. Nowadays with even more alternatives it's beyond incredible anyone still wants them any more. I'd have to guess 95% of the demand is just force of habit, 5% is simply because nothing else will really work as well (i.e. oven lights). People continue to buy incandescents because that's what they've always bought.


----------



## Sub_Umbra

I'm always amazed at how many people are so sure that everyone else is an idiot and that they could fix the world if only they could ram their brilliant ideas down everyone else's throats.

With never a second thought that any other person may have a valid reason for spending their hard earned dollars on their families the way they do... 

With never a second thought that any company or corporation may have people who have worked their entire carreers on issues that they dismiss out of hand...because _only they_ know the truth.

These self-appointed *anointed ones* are arrogant in general and outright dangerous when they're part of the government.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe

10-4 Sub! See my post above for my take!


----------



## LuxLuthor

JTR, I agree with much of what you just thoughtfully posted, especially on the influence of advertising. However, it is not all related to advertising/promotions/habitual buying.

People mainly wanted SUV's to ferry their suburban families around more comfortably. It is a more functional vehicle than the old "station wagons." It was an evolution from that and incorporating many features of a VW Bus, pickup trucks (transporting features), and huge "recreational vehicle camper vehicles." They keep buying them because they have many features not found elsewhere....and despite their higher fuel costs.

I don't see the addition of airbags & seatbelts in the same light as banning incan bulbs. One is a matter of public safety with direct correlation to crash testing statistics, the other is a feel good approach to the immensely complex energy supply/consumption issue. 

Banning incan bulbs is akin to banning 7 GPF or 3.5 GPF toilets while ignoring all the much more dramatic wastes of water. In addition, it does not recognize that some areas do not have a shortage of water, but those points are seen as irrelevant.

Obviously, I don't agree with you at all in your last paragraph, and this type of intolerant characterization is exactly what many object to. Point by point, I don't agree they are garbage. I don't mind changing a light bulb 1-2 times a year. None of my incan bulbs have ever started a fire (well except my hand held torch hotwires), and I seriously doubt that assertion if they are used in an appropriate light fixture. 

I believe side by side their light quality is superb next to any LED I have ever seen, and 95% of fluorescent bulbs. I'm not sure if Disney uses them in their Mickey Mouse promotional lights, but they would surely display him well. 

Incan bulbs are hardly a joke. They are wonderful sources of illumination, and they are the only types that fit the 30-40 custom recessed lights and antique lights that I have in my home. Who is offering to pay the expenses of ripping out and replacing my existing lighting? I actually tried all the sizes of CFL's at Home Depot, and they would only fit about 5 of the 35-40 lights throughout my house. I wouldn't dream of trying to use an LED light for anything other than a few hand held lights. Their spectrum casts a ghoulish antiseptic display that is not acceptable yet.

The important thing to recognize is there are many who do not agree with you on some of your preferences, and our viewpoints are valid. For example, while I have no interest in an SUV, I have also had no interest in an EV, although I found the technology intriguing. If someone gave me an EV, I would sell it to someone like you who would want to use it. 

I will likely spend $500 - $1000 buying incan light bulbs over the next month because I find them superior in many ways....not to mention I will not have to replace my lamps and fixtures. Have some respect for other viewpoints, and what we enjoy using. The government rarely knows what is best for everyone. 

I don't mind you using LED's, but I would never support mandating you only using incan lights because that is my preference. Nor would I feel the need to diminish all those who want to use LED's, as you just did.

I do support standards to increase automotive fuel efficiency, but not at the cost of the dying U.S. Auto industry. I have more interest in opening Alaska, offshore oil sources, lessening restrictions on new refinery construction, nuclear power (if France can do it...), and formulating new energy sources. I don't regard using corn to produce ethanol as a worthwhile step.....it is along the same lines as banning light bulbs, and 7 GPF toilets in the overal scheme of managing a large problem.


----------



## jtr1962

Sub_Umbra said:


> These self-appointed *anointed ones* are arrogant in general and outright dangerous when they're part of the government.


And who elects them? Fact is a lot of the politicians were purposely elected by the voters based on their stand on certain issues, including in some cases more government regulation in certain areas. I agree the government sticks its two cents in many areas it has no business going. Legislated speed limits are a great example of that. However, that doesn't mean that all government interference is necessarily bad. Government intervenes _all the time_ on social issues, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

Face it-companies are in business for one reason-to make money. China is a great example of what happens when business runs run little or no regulation. I like having enough regulations to know that when I go to the grocery store what I buy isn't terribly likely to poison me. It took a _government_ requirement to label for transfats in order to finally get those transfats taken out of most products. Without that requirement, it would have been business as usual. The free market, in the total absence of regulation, will meet demand in the cheapest manner possible, without regard to the health or welfare of either consumers or workers. History has proven this time and again.


----------



## jtr1962

LuxLuthor said:


> People mainly wanted SUV's to ferry their suburban families around more comfortably. It is a more functional vehicle than the old "station wagons." It was an evolution from that and incorporating many features of a VW Bus, pickup trucks (transporting features), and huge "recreational vehicle camper vehicles." They keep buying them because they have many features not found elsewhere....and despite their higher fuel costs.


All that still doesn't explain their ubiquity. After all, years ago some people had station wagons or pickups or RVs, but most people, even with several children, got along just fine with regular sedans. Fact is advertising pushed quite of number of people who would have be fine, even better off, in a sedan into buying SUVs. For a long time I rarely saw any car commercials that weren't for SUVs. It was almost as if the rest of the automotive market was an afterthought.



> I don't see the addition of airbags & seatbelts in the same light as banning incan bulbs. One is a matter of public safety with direct correlation to crash testing statistics, the other is a feel good approach to the immensely complex energy supply/consumption issue.


Except it is partially a safety/health issue when the time comes that we need to build more power plants because people insist on doing things the same old way. Sure, the issue is complex, solar power will undoubedly ease things a bit, and so forth. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of old technology which has outlived its usefulness. By 2012 there will be absolutely nothing incandescent can't do which LED can do better, short of oven lights. Had the ban taken effect right now, then I would have come out against it. In four years time, though, LED will be a mature technology.



> Banning incan bulbs is akin to banning 7 GPF or 3.5 GPF toilets while ignoring all the much more dramatic wastes of water. In addition, it does not recognize that some areas do not have a shortage of water, but those points are seen as irrelevant.


For what it's worth I'm with you on the toilet issue. If anything here in NYC we have too much water with the 60 or 70 inches a year of rain lately. And flushing waste properly is a important sanitary/health issue as you pointed out.



> Obviously, I don't agree with you at all in your last paragraph, and this type of intolerant characterization is exactly what many object to. Point by point, I don't agree they are garbage. I don't mind changing a light bulb 1-2 times a year. None of my incan bulbs have ever started a fire (well except my hand held torch hotwires), and I seriously doubt that assertion if they are used in an appropriate light fixture.


1-2 times a year? More like every two months in a heavily used fixture, and then only if the bulb lives up to its rated life. Sorry, but that's never been my experience. Back 20 years ago when we actually used incans regularly I think we were lucky if we got 500 hours out of a bulb. 100 to 250 was more like it. And often the bulb broke off the base while changing it, and/or caused burns unless you felt like sitting in the dark for 5 minutes while everything cooled. Don't even get me started on my experience with incans in model railroading. :scowl: That pretty much made me give up lighting models until high-brightness LEDs came along. No, incans are way too maintenance intensive for my tastes. All they ever do is burn out. Changing out lamps about once a decade, as I do in my linear fixtures, is more like it. I can't wait for 100,000 hour LEDs where changing lamps is a thing of the past.



> I believe side by side their light quality is superb next to any LED I have ever seen, and 95% of fluorescent bulbs. I'm not sure if Disney uses them in their Mickey Mouse promotional lights, but they would surely display him well.


Well, my full spectrum fluorescents are just like being out on a sunny day. :nana: Incan can't do that-they're just too yellow, and probably bad for your eyes long term. I know I get terrible headaches trying to do anything under incandescent lamps. That's one reason I went to fluoro 20 years ago. A lot of the preference for incandescent is just force of habit or getting used to a certain look. They use 5000K for residences in Japan, for example. Even here in the states, the whiter 3500K is starting to catch on big time. Probably the only type of light which almost everyone can agree is universally appealing is something close to sunlight. Everything else, whether incandescent, LED, or fluoro, is a compromise.



> I wouldn't dream of trying to use an LED light for anything other than a few hand held lights. Their spectrum casts a ghoulish antiseptic display that is not acceptable yet.


This is really what bothers me. You don't think in a few years time LED can be made to give a light just like your cherished incandescents? You essentially are banking upwards of $500 that they won't. If nothing else, the breakneck pace of change has taught me to never invest large amounts betting old technology will be better than what comes out in a few years. Of course, if you can afford the extra energy, don't mind the heat, and don't mind changing bulbs it's your choice. It's nothing to me what kind of lights you use at home. You're not even affecting my area of the grid with your choices.



> The important thing to recognize is there are many who do not agree with you on some of your preferences, and our viewpoints are valid. For example, while I have no interest in an SUV, I have also had no interest in an EV, although I found the technology intriguing. If someone gave me an EV, I would sell it to someone like you who would want to use it.


I think EVs are an interesting idea also, and I hope they ultimately replace the internal combustion engine, but I have no need of a car, period. I'm content to walk, bike, or take a subway wherever I need to go. That's my preference. And it really irks me that in most of the country people are forced to buy their own transportation.



> Have some respect for other viewpoints, and what we enjoy using. The government rarely knows what is best for everyone.


I'll respect a decision only when a person is fully informed of all the alternatives. You obviously are with regards to lighting so I respect your decision, even feel you have valid reasons here since you designed your woodwork around existing incandescent technology. What I can't respect are people who blindly go on, business as usual, without even considering doing anything differently. This isn't just in regards to saving energy. If people gave a little thought to their actions once in a while they might find they actually like the new over the old. And maybe change for the better would come faster, and without any prodding. It just bothers me when people mindlessly go on doing things the same old way while expecting a different outcome. I laughed the other day when I saw a soundbite of someone saying he thought energy conservation was important from the driver's seat of his SUV. Well, I suppose Al Gore is even more of a hypocrite. I don't preach something unless I also practice it.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Home Depot has an awsome price on these 100W 6-Packs for only $3.10, so I bought 6 cases....let's see...that's 6 x 12 x 6 = 432 bulbs. :twothumbs It was only about $220 or 50 cents a bulb. That was all they had on the smaller high intensity bulbs, so will have to get another 150 of those later.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe

Dang! I need to get a few of those six packs as a few of the lesser used lights around here could use them! All the ones that stay on for hours are CFLs!


----------



## Flashanator

Hehe, nice to see you stocking up 

Maybe I should too. Dunno if i feel comfortable walking in my local light bulb store & saying, Ill take 500 light bulbs thanks.


----------



## LuxLuthor

It took me a while to do the pretty Christmas color coding and indentation. I hope you appreciate it.




> Originally Posted by *LuxLuthor*: _People mainly wanted SUV's to ferry their suburban families around more comfortably. It is a more functional vehicle than the old "station wagons." It was an evolution from that and incorporating many features of a VW Bus, pickup trucks (transporting features), and huge "recreational vehicle camper vehicles." They keep buying them because they have many features not found elsewhere....and despite their higher fuel costs._





> Originally Posted by *jtr1962:* All that still doesn't explain their ubiquity. After all, years ago some people had station wagons or pickups or RVs, but most people, even with several children, got along just fine with regular sedans. Fact is advertising pushed quite of number of people who would have be fine, even better off, in a sedan into buying SUVs. For a long time I rarely saw any car commercials that weren't for SUVs. It was almost as if the rest of the automotive market was an afterthought.


 Your assumption that regular sedans were just fine for travel with several children is faulty. You obviously have not ridden with 3-4 children plus the dog in a sedan vs. in a SUV or you wouldn't say that. Sedans were never "just fine." Rather there was no substitute until the station wagon, then SUV. 

The SUV is vastly superior in space, comfort, amenities, entering/exiting the vehicle, storage, etc. It was a natural extension of the popular station wagon which did not have as nice of seat placement, head room, getting in/out, etc. It has nothing to do with advertising in this case. They sell themselves for a family going to a showroom. It is not an advertising issue as far as I am concerned. ​


> Originally Posted by *LuxLuthor: *_I don't see the addition of airbags & seatbelts in the same light as banning incan bulbs. One is a matter of public safety with direct correlation to crash testing statistics, the other is a feel good approach to the immensely complex energy supply/consumption issue_.





> Originally Posted by *jtr1962:* Except it is partially a safety/health issue when the time comes that we need to build more power plants because people insist on doing things the same old way. Sure, the issue is complex, solar power will undoubedly ease things a bit, and so forth. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of old technology which has outlived its usefulness. By 2012 there will be absolutely nothing incandescent can't do which LED can do better, short of oven lights. Had the ban taken effect right now, then I would have come out against it. In four years time, though, LED will be a mature technology.


​I don't see this remotely as a health/safety issue. Using the technology of nuclear plants that France seems to have mastered, or new clean coal burning which we have the largest reserves in the world, or solar, or wind, or wave, or hydroelectric, or geothermal.....can all provide the energy we need without raising the spectre of health/safety.

That is your speculation and optimistic forecast on the future of LED. I have not yet seen any LED's that I enjoy using for more than a few minutes inside with a hand held light. They remain ghoulish and wash out natural colors of my environment. I have not see any viable technology that answers the color spectrum problem with LED's.

The landscape is strewn with failed technologies and well intended improvements. The Segway and Electric Cars among the more recent over-hyped fiascos. You can see from my last post image that I put my money on a known technology that I know works perfectly well. ​


> _Originally Posted by *LuxLuthor: *Banning incan bulbs is akin to banning 7 GPF or 3.5 GPF toilets while ignoring all the much more dramatic wastes of water. In addition, it does not recognize that some areas do not have a shortage of water, but those points are seen as irrelevant._





> Originally Posted by *jtr1962:* For what it's worth I'm with you on the toilet issue. If anything here in NYC we have too much water with the 60 or 70 inches a year of rain lately. And flushing waste properly is a important sanitary/health issue as you pointed out.


​Good. Now just extend your toilet flushing bubble to include the similar incan banning governmental fallacy, and we are all set. ​


> Originally Posted by *LuxLuthor: *_Obviously, I don't agree with you at all in your last paragraph, and this type of intolerant characterization is exactly what many object to. Point by point, I don't agree they are garbage. I don't mind changing a light bulb 1-2 times a year. None of my incan bulbs have ever started a fire (well except my hand held torch hotwires), and I seriously doubt that assertion if they are used in an appropriate light fixture._





> Originally Posted by *jtr1962:* 1-2 times a year? More like every two months in a heavily used fixture, and then only if the bulb lives up to its rated life. Sorry, but that's never been my experience. Back 20 years ago when we actually used incans regularly I think we were lucky if we got 500 hours out of a bulb. 100 to 250 was more like it. And often the bulb broke off the base while changing it, and/or caused burns unless you felt like sitting in the dark for 5 minutes while everything cooled. Don't even get me started on my experience with incans in model railroading. :scowl: That pretty much made me give up lighting models until high-brightness LEDs came along. No, incans are way too maintenance intensive for my tastes. All they ever do is burn out. Changing out lamps about once a decade, as I do in my linear fixtures, is more like it. I can't wait for 100,000 hour LEDs where changing lamps is a thing of the past.


​IMHO, you ruined your points by picking ridiculous exagerations of each item. Yes, I change bulbs 1-2 times/year. I typically buy bulbs that are rated at 750-1000 hours. That means if I keep them turned on 2-3 hours/day they would last an entire year. Some bulbs I keep turned on for a few minutes/average day. Others I may keep on 4-8 hours if I'm up doing something. I'm over estimating changing bulbs 1-2 times/year if I average them out. I have some bulbs that I can't ever remember changing.

I have not had more than 1-2 bulbs break off in the base in more than 10 years. If that happens, I simply push a potato into it and twist it right out. Grandma taught me that.

Somehow I have managed to master the art of changing a light bulb without ever having burned myself. I use the elaborate technique of using a dish towel. I also have more than one light on at a time, so on the rare event of one burning out, it's not a problem.

I don't mind changing lightbulbs 1-2 times a year. You make it seem like an olympic event. ​


> Originally Posted by *LuxLuthor: *_I believe side by side their light quality is superb next to any LED I have ever seen, and 95% of fluorescent bulbs. I'm not sure if Disney uses them in their Mickey Mouse promotional lights, but they would surely display him well._





> Originally Posted by *jtr1962:* Well, my full spectrum fluorescents are just like being out on a sunny day. :nana: Incan can't do that-they're just too yellow, and probably bad for your eyes long term. I know I get terrible headaches trying to do anything under incandescent lamps. That's one reason I went to fluoro 20 years ago. A lot of the preference for incandescent is just force of habit or getting used to a certain look. They use 5000K for residences in Japan, for example. Even here in the states, the whiter 3500K is starting to catch on big time. Probably the only type of light which almost everyone can agree is universally appealing is something close to sunlight. Everything else, whether incandescent, LED, or fluoro, is a compromise.


​Again, I don't agree with anything you stated. Full spectrum fluorescent bulbs were not available at stores near me until maybe 3-5 years ago, or if before that were so ridiculously priced, it was a joke. 

The color of incan light bulbs has always been wonderful and pleasing. I have been buying the fuller spectrum bulbs like those shown in my previous image post for as long as I can remember. This last score at Home Depot worked out to 50 cents a bulb. :candle:

My preference for incan light which has a fuller, more natural spectrum has nothing to do with 'force of habit' or getting use to anything. It simply renders everything in more natural, pleasing colors. Incan lighting is refreshing and wonderful. When I must go in offices that use the cheap, old style long ceiling panel light bulbs I get creeped out, feel restless and get significant eye strain. LED illumination is ghoulish, and makes everything look washed out and like various textures of mashed potatoes. ​


> Originally Posted by *LuxLuthor: *_I wouldn't dream of trying to use an LED light for anything other than a few hand held lights. Their spectrum casts a ghoulish antiseptic display that is not acceptable yet_.





> Originally Posted by *jtr1962*: This is really what bothers me. You don't think in a few years time LED can be made to give a light just like your cherished incandescents? You essentially are banking upwards of $500 that they won't. If nothing else, the breakneck pace of change has taught me to never invest large amounts betting old technology will be better than what comes out in a few years.


​As I said earlier, I see no reason to assume LED's will yield the kind of spectrum I want. They sure as hell have not come up with anything to convince me yet. They have also not shown me any indication that they will bother accommodating all of my custom light fixture needs. 

I just went around the house and I have 16 different types of bulbs in this house. I also looked at the complete selection of bulbs at Home Depot tonight, and I can replace exactly 5 of 44 bulbs with the CFL types. There were no household LED lights I found the least bit deserving of my money....except I did buy a small floor bathroom night light to guide me to my beloved 7 GPF Throne. That should make you happy.  
​


> Originally Posted by *jtr1962*:





> Of course, if you can afford the extra energy, don't mind the heat, and don't mind changing bulbs it's your choice. It's nothing to me what kind of lights you use at home. You're not even affecting my area of the grid with your choices.


 Exactly. *It is MY CHOICE*....that is the heart of all of our objections to this BS law. There is nothing about incans that I "mind." It is also a joke to think this ban will affect the overall energy supply of the USA, any more than banning my beloved 7 GPF toilet will fix whatever imaginary water issue the government and environmental activists decided must be addressed. 

Except the Government and proponents of this preposterous incan ban think they should choose for me and everyone else. They have the same assumptions that you and others have displayed in this thread....only there are just as many of us who do not agree with you. 

Who will pay the huge sums to replace all my recessed lighting that came with this house? You? Al Gore? Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid? George Bush? What about my antique lamps? ​


> Originally Posted by *LuxLuthor: *_The important thing to recognize is there are many who do not agree with you on some of your preferences, and our viewpoints are valid. For example, while I have no interest in an SUV, I have also had no interest in an EV, although I found the technology intriguing. If someone gave me an EV, I would sell it to someone like you who would want to use it._





> Originally Posted by *jtr1962:* I think EVs are an interesting idea also, and I hope they ultimately replace the internal combustion engine, but I have no need of a car, period. I'm content to walk, bike, or take a subway wherever I need to go. That's my preference. And it really irks me that in most of the country people are forced to buy their own transportation.


​It doesn't irk me to buy a car at all. No force is involved. I enjoy spending the hours researching the features I will get in my next car, and ****ering with the desparate salesmen. Like many Americans, a car is a source of enjoyment. It is a wonderful experience owning, working on, riding in, and having a car give me the freedom to go whereever I want, whenever I want.​


> Originally Posted by *LuxLuthor: *_Have some respect for other viewpoints, and what we enjoy using. The government rarely knows what is best for everyone._





> Originally Posted by *jtr1962*: I'll respect a decision only when a person is fully informed of all the alternatives. You obviously are with regards to lighting so I respect your decision, even feel you have valid reasons here since you designed your woodwork around existing incandescent technology. What I can't respect are people who blindly go on, business as usual, without even considering doing anything differently. This isn't just in regards to saving energy. If people gave a little thought to their actions once in a while they might find they actually like the new over the old. And maybe change for the better would come faster, and without any prodding. It just bothers me when people mindlessly go on doing things the same old way while expecting a different outcome. I laughed the other day when I saw a soundbite of someone saying he thought energy conservation was important from the driver's seat of his SUV. Well, I suppose Al Gore is even more of a hypocrite. I don't preach something unless I also practice it.


The only problem is you assume too much that many (or perhaps most) people are mindless in their choices. Hopefully if you took the time to read all of my posts, you can celebrate the diversity we are from each other.

I was always mystified by all the people who are terrified or unwilling to be around or learn about how to use and enjoy things like computers, guns, hiking, camping, canoeing, coffee, cigars, wine, art, variety of music, variety of TV/movie genres, etc....but they have their reasons even if they don't make sense to me, and even though I don't agree with them. Like I said, I would never think of forcing a ban of LED's and CFL's on everyone because I believe incans are better.

Many people have valid criticisms of the impact of technology on humanity. There is little evidence that it has really improved the quality and worthwhileness of life. I regard some of my friends from when I provided services in Amish country, or my years living at an Ashram, or the 2-4 week wilderness canoe trips in the Quetico/Boundary Waters as some of the happiest times and people I have ever known. There was a noticeable absence of technology in all settings. ​


----------



## Sub_Umbra

Nice code, Lux!


----------



## wild68fury

If the Government bans anything, how can we have a free market. Don't get me wrong, I use a lot of alternatives to the incadecent bulb. I do not have a problem paying for the electricity I use. It is my choice not the governments! I could ramble on but, would it change anything?


----------



## LightInTheWallet

When CFL's were introduced ,"white" LEDs weren't existant, I hope that when incandescents are outlawed, an option exists that will fulfill the following requirements. A) come to instant brightness in a closet, without premature failure due to said devices 10-30 sec. ON cycle. B) Come to near or full illumination when I enter an unheated ( and thus energy efficient) portion of my residence . An unheated garage, crawlspace, attic or even outside landing, stairway, driveway. The need has been there for years, the market doesn't seem to have delivered yet. Incidentally my favorite lamp is a CFL Torchiere from lowe's. I wish it had the color tempature printed on the bulb, because I love the Non blue non yellow of the tint. It mimics halogen flawlessly, but I still see that different lights have different uses, and would like to thank the various powers that be for allowing me not to quite literally View the world as I choose.


----------



## jtr1962

LuxLuthor said:


> It took me a while to do the pretty Christmas color coding and indentation. I hope you appreciate it.


Yes, definitely. It makes things a lot easier to follow. And funny thing is I just came back to this thread after working a few hours.

Now on to a few points. We'll have to agree to disagree on why people buy SUVs. I see people in the city with them who only use them for trips to the grocery store, only have one or two kids, don't really do any of the things you say. Ditto for a lot of suburbanites in this area. They're a status symbol only for a lot of people, merely a way to say "Hey look, I make so much money that I can burn it (literally)".

On the new power plants, they may not necessarily be a health issue. A lot depends upon where they put them, what powers them, etc. It's just that I'm used to the local utility sticking gas turbines right in the middle of populated areas to meet demand spikes. I certainly don't want or need one not far from where I live. A nuclear plant in a fairly remote area is fine. In fact, I wish we would go the way of France. Forget coal, forget cars for anything but shorter trips. Just build a national network of high-speed rail powered by nuclear power plants to more or less do what the Interstates and airlines do now.



> I have not see any viable technology that answers the color spectrum problem with LED's.


 
RGB whites look very promising. We still need to bump up the efficiency of green emitters. Like I said, 4 years is an eternity in LED land. Who knows what we'll have.



> The landscape is strewn with failed technologies and well intended improvements. The Segway and Electric Cars among the more recent over-hyped fiascos. You can see from my last post image that I put my money on a known technology that I know works perfectly well.


 
Agreed on the Segway. That was the most overpriced, overhyped thing I've seen in a long time. The verdict isn't in on electric cars. With all the new battery technology, I'm predicting they dominate the transportation landscape by 2020, if not sooner. Let's not forget that even if you're not sold on global warming, auto emissions cause nasty things like cancer. They also severely impact the quality of life. Zero emissions may well be a requirement is certain cities in the not too distant future for those reasons. EVs also neatly solve the vehicle noise pollution problem. If you don't think any of these are major issues try living where I do, especially in the summer. In fact, probably half the US population lives in or near areas where auto emissions seriously impact the quality of life. This problem needs to be addressed yesterday.



> IMHO, you ruined your points by picking ridiculous exagerations of each item.
> .....
> 
> I don't mind changing lightbulbs 1-2 times a year. You make it seem like an olympic event.


No, none of that is an exaggeration. I wish it were. My experience using incandescents is if they're on about 8 hours a day, which is average for me, I'm lucky to get a month's use out of them. Many times they popped the second or third time I turned them on. My experience in model railroading-same thing. I build a nice model, light it up. After running it a few hours one or more of the lamps burn out. Cycle lighting-same theme. New bulb, hit a pothole half an hour into the ride, bulb is toast. I stopped lighting my bike until LEDs came along because I couldn't afford to replace lamps any more. Like I said, all they ever do is burn out. Maybe you're on a part of the grid with very low voltage, or just lucky. I've had horrible experiences with incandescent lamps. And changing them is a nuisance when you have to look all around only to find you need to run to the store because you're out of spares. Well, I guess you won't have that problem any more with all the bulbs you just bought.



> Again, I don't agree with anything you stated. Full spectrum fluorescent bulbs were not available at stores near me until maybe 3-5 years ago, or if before that were so ridiculously priced, it was a joke.


They've been available online way before them for more reasonable prices. These are only $8 a tube ($7 if you buy six or more). 32 watts, 3300 lumens, 91 CRI, 34,000 hours rated life. They even have CFLs although IMO if you're going to go fluorescent, you might as well go all the way and get linear tubes. The tube-ballast system is so much more reliable that way.



> The color of incan light bulbs has always been wonderful and pleasing. I have been buying the fuller spectrum bulbs like those shown in my previous image post for as long as I can remember. This last score at Home Depot worked out to 50 cents a bulb. :candle:


You do know that the Reveals are whiter than an unfiltered incandescent? Not as nice as my fluorescents if approximating sunlight is the goal, but still better than regular incandescent.



> My preference for incan light which has a fuller, more natural spectrum has nothing to do with 'force of habit' or getting use to anything. It simply renders everything in more natural, pleasing colors. Incan lighting is refreshing and wonderful. When I must go in offices that use the cheap, old style long ceiling panel light bulbs I get creeped out, feel restless and get significant eye strain. LED illumination is ghoulish, and makes everything look washed out and like various textures of mashed potatoes.


Well, you just shot yourself in the foot here. I hate "old style" fluorescent myself. Try doing an apples to apples comparison. You're doing the exact same generalizations that I mentioned earlier, and with LEDs also. You're using some bad examples of flourescent and probably just the few LED lights you own as the sole basis for your judgement. I've seen literally hundreds of different LEDs. Yes, some are indeed ghoulish. Others are quite nice. A Cree WH bin is actually pretty close to my full-spectrum fluorescents except for lacking a bit of deep red. I even have a warm white Cree which looks pretty much like a ~3400K incandescent lamp.



> There were no household LED lights I found the least bit deserving of my money....except I did buy a small floor bathroom night light to guide me to my beloved 7 GPF Throne. That should make you happy.


It should make you happy also. You won't be stuck in the dark because a night light bulb burned out (everyone I know says those 4-watt nightlight lamps don't last long).



> It doesn't irk me to buy a car at all. No force is involved. I enjoy spending the hours researching the features I will get in my next car, and ****ering with the desparate salesmen. Like many Americans, a car is a source of enjoyment. It is a wonderful experience owning, working on, riding in, and having a car give me the freedom to go whereever I want, whenever I want.


It may not bother you, but you missed my point. If I lived almost any place outside of NYC, I would be _forced _to provide my own transportation whether I wanted to or not. Not necessarily a car, but probably something powered given the huge distances between things in most of the country. That means having to jump through the hoops of getting a license, maintaining the vehicle, paying for it, etc. I have zero desire to do any of this. If I wanted to be a taxi driver I would have chosen that profession. I guess my point is that in the same way _you_ object to having the desires of what lawmakers feel is better foisted upon you by this ban, I object to having the "car culture" of America foisted upon me. To me a car is not a joy, it's not fun to ride or work on, it's not even fun to drive except over maybe 120 mph (yeah, tried that once in a friend's car when I had a permit). Rather, it's a burden to own, most driving is a chore, or even aggravating. As a mode of transport it's noisy, smelly, and slow. It seriously annoys me that lawmakers have given just about zero accomodation for me and those like me. I'd say offhand that about half the people I know would rather not even have the expense of owning a car if they had reasonable public transport available. OK, so here's a huge market for private enterprise to fill. I'm waiting....



> The only problem is you assume too much that many (or perhaps most) people are mindless in their choices. Hopefully if you took the time to read all of my posts, you can celebrate the diversity we are from each other.


No, you're not mindless in your choices but trust me, this site is not a cross section of the general public and you know it. My experience from 45 years of living is that 95% of people are mindless automatons who will do whatever the latest trend is. They're either too lazy or too unintelligent to try to do otherwise. Why do you think the news goes in 30-second sound bites? That's about the point where you start to lose most people.



> I was always mystified by all the people who are terrified or unwilling to be around or learn about how to use and enjoy things like computers, guns, hiking, camping, canoeing, coffee, cigars, wine, art, variety of music, variety of TV/movie genres, etc....but they have their reasons even if they don't make sense to me, and even though I don't agree with them.


You can't tell anything about a person until you've been in their shoes. Live where I do, as I do, for a year and I'd bet you would agree with me on almost everything (except our lighting preferences). BTW, I'm personally open to most of the things on your list except I lack the money to do things like canoeing, or camping. I don't listen to music though, and I won't smoke anything. And unfortunately, guns are illegal here so whether I like them or not I can't own them.



> Many people have valid criticisms of the impact of technology on humanity. There is little evidence that it has really improved the quality and worthwhileness of life. I regard some of my friends from when I provided services in Amish country, or my years living at an Ashram, or the 2-4 week wilderness canoe trips in the Quetico/Boundary Waters as some of the happiest times and people I have ever known. There was a noticeable absence of technology in all settings.


This explains away everything you said. So you're a Luddite, at least in part. Look, I agree that a lot of our technology hasn't improved life. I think cars have made life worse, especially around big cities. I personally hate cell phones and all the other stupid gadgets people carry with them to drown out the real world. However, I still feel technology has made us better off. I sure wouldn't want to manually do the things machines now do for us. Besides wearing out the body prematurely, most of those things are boring, rote labor. My point is to be open more to new technology. For every 100 bad new things there are one or two good ones. The personal computer, the Internet, LEDs are just a few I can think of offhand.


----------



## 2xTrinity

LightInTheWallet said:


> When CFL's were introduced ,"white" LEDs weren't existant, I hope that when incandescents are outlawed, an option exists that will fulfill the following requirements. A) come to instant brightness in a closet, without premature failure due to said devices 10-30 sec. ON cycle.


HIR incandescent should be able to do all of these (incandescents which re-heat the filament using reflected IR radiation), while at the same time exceeding the efficiency standards (around ~24 lm/W, for a specific class of medium base incan lamps) which is achievable with existing incandescent technology. Even plain old non-coated line-voltage halogens should be able to comply. I believe the law is mainly there to exclude only the most inefficient of the incans available.

One major problem with LED lighting (and to some extent CFLs) is that there is a major catch-22 involved in trying to make energy-efficient replaces for screw in incan fixtures. Very few people want to replace entire fixtures, and the existing fixtures are not at all condusive to incan-alternatives. 

Most incan fixtures are designed to insulate heat. LEDs need heatsinking to dissipate wasted heat, and even many self-ballasted CFLs have had problems with overheating. Incandescents don't care about what the incoming power supply looks like. Lamps with ballasts (CFLs, LEDs) on the o ther hand require a clean input power supply to work, that's why they're incompatible with things like timers, photocells, dimmers etc. designed with incans in mind. 

I would much rather see a whole lot more _dedicated_ LED or CFL fixtures, actually optimized to use those technologies, with things like integral dimmers (that dim to very low percentages) available for sale. Most stores like Lowes/Home Depot only have one or two dedicated "efficient" light fixtures, if any. 



> Come to near or full illumination when I enter an unheated ( and thus energy efficient) portion of my residence . An unheated garage, crawlspace, attic or even outside landing, stairway, driveway. The need has been there for years, the market doesn't seem to have delivered yet.


This problem has dramatically worsened with newer CFLs. In order to make CFLs that won't _over_heat in recessed fixtures, they had to compromise and optimize them to reach full output at a higher temperature to begin with.



> Incidentally my favorite lamp is a CFL Torchiere from lowe's. I wish it had the color tempature printed on the bulb, because I love the Non blue non yellow of the tint. It mimics halogen flawlessly,


I have used this lamp. It's a 3000K "2D" bulb, and it's pretty good at reproducing the look of a standard halogen. My preferred color temp for normal household use is actually 3500K, though I've yet to see a CFL that looks as good as an overdriven "hotwire" bulb of the same temperature. I believe LEDs could come very close to producing this color temp by implementing two phosphors (blue + red and green) as opposed to one (blue + yellow). I've actually found some nice results by "ceiling bouncing" a blend of white, red, and amber LEDs.



> but I still see that different lights have different uses, and would like to thank the various powers that be for allowing me not to quite literally View the world as I choose.


 I agree. In general I don't like seeing the government micro-manage things like this, and I understand that there are many applications where there do not exist any viable alternatives to incandescents. For example, the way I discovered CPF was when I was searching for a more energy-efficient alternative to small halogen spotlights (I coulnd't find anything suitable). However, this particular law is not exactly a ban on incandescent technology altogether, it will cut out only the most inefficient of incandescents (such as <12 lm/W "reveal" lamps).

However, I do find it frustrating that there's still very little dedicated CFL, and linear fluorescent fixture options for consumers even available. For that matter, even HIR (halogen infrared reflection) has existed for years, yet never (as far as I know) been offered for general lighting.


----------



## LightInTheWallet

KROMATICS said:


> _ `(D) GENERAL SERVICE INCANDESCENT LAMP- _
> _ `(i) IN GENERAL- The term `general service incandescent lamp' means a standard incandescent or halogen type lamp that--_
> _ `(I) is intended for general service applications;_
> _ `(II) has a medium screw base;_
> _ `(III) has a lumen range of not less than 310 lumens and not more than 2,600 lumens; and_
> _ `(IV) is capable of being operated at a voltage range at least partially within 110 and 130 volts._
> _ `(ii) EXCLUSIONS- The term `general service incandescent lamp' does not include the following incandescent lamps:_
> _ `(I) An appliance lamp._
> _ `(II) A black light lamp._
> _ `(III) A bug lamp._
> _ `(IV) A colored lamp._
> _ `(V) An infrared lamp._
> _ `(VI) A left-hand thread lamp._
> _ `(VII) A marine lamp._
> _ `(VIII) A marine signal service lamp._
> _ `(IX) A mine service lamp._
> _ `(X) A plant light lamp._
> _ `(XI) A reflector lamp._
> _ `(XII) A rough service lamp._
> _ `(XIII) A shatter-resistant lamp (including a shatter-proof lamp and a shatter-protected lamp)._
> _ `(XIV) A sign service lamp._
> _ `(XV) A silver bowl lamp._
> _ `(XVI) A showcase lamp._
> _ `(XVII) A 3-way incandescent lamp._
> _ `(XVIII) A traffic signal lamp._
> _ `(XIX) A vibration service lamp._
> _ `(XX) A G shape lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002 with a diameter of 5 inches or more._
> _ `(XXI) A T shape lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002) and that uses not more than 40 watts or has a length of more than 10 inches._
> _ `(XXII) A B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S, or M-14 lamp (as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002 and ANSI C78.20-2003) of 40 watts or less.'; and_
> 
> _ (B) by adding at the end the following:_
> _ `(T) APPLIANCE LAMP- The term `appliance lamp' means any lamp that--_
> _ `(i) is specifically designed to operate in a household appliance, has a maximum wattage of 40 watts, and is sold at retail, including an oven lamp, refrigerator lamp, and vacuum cleaner lamp; and_
> _ `(ii) is designated and marketed for the intended application, with--_
> _ `(I) the designation on the lamp packaging; and_
> _ `(II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as being for appliance use._


What constitutes a reflector lamp? (Article XI)


----------



## V8TOYTRUCK

I'll certainly miss the romantic glow of a dimmed halogen MR16 lamp =(


----------



## LuxLuthor

tr1962, I think we each made our respective points and this has gone about as far as it can go. 

Two final points.

1) After I looked it up, no I'm far from being a Luddite, just not impressed or excited about LED's I have seen, owned, or read about thus far. If it changes and meets my interests as you anticipate, I'll be on board to some degree.

2) Just caught this story on Slashdot about a Popular Science feature story on the Aptera in case you had not heard about it (which I'm sure you have), but it looks more interesting than most EV's.

More importantly, have a Merry Christmas if that is a holiday you celebrate. If not, then never mind.


----------



## James S

beyond the political grandstanding there are technical problems. Beyond the just esthetic ones that make a CF look horrid in a chandelier and I hope LED bulbs will return them to looking pretty... But there are a bazillion dimmer switches out there in peoples houses that will not work with anything but the most expensive CF bulbs. Will the CF companies come forward and support those or will my kitchen light just go dark a little at a time? Or will there be government support for electricians to go and replace the dimmers in peoples houses that they have also end of lifed by association? I'm concerned that people will put cheap CF bulbs into dimmed or timered lamps and have them burn out or burn up...


----------



## LightInTheWallet

So the general consensus seems to be that the technology to meet all of our varying and important lighting needs does not exist presently unless a substantial investment in retrofitting/replacing is made. Its already law whether or not we all agree on any environmental, political, philosophical issues. Thanks to all who have made this a very illuminating thread.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe

This has been a pretty civil discussion. I think what most of us could agree on is the government sticks it's grubby fingers into WAY too many pies!

I do believe that by 4 years time we may not recognize what we have by then. I'm sure manufacturers will take up the slack of dimmable and otherwise incan-like behavour too!


----------



## jtr1962

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> I do believe that by 4 years time we may not recognize what we have by then. I'm sure manufacturers will take up the slack of dimmable and otherwise incan-like behavour too!


Exactly what I've been saying all along. People are getting all bent out of shape here worrying about scenarios which may never come to pass. The free market will not leave the huge voids which will exist after the ban takes effect. As for dimmability, that will come with LEDs. The reason so few CFLs are dimmable is that flouro tubes are technically a lot harder to dim. IIRC, you need to _increase_ the voltage as you drop the current. Also, past some point you need to keep the cathodes heated to sustain the arc. This makes for a lot more complexity than can be designed into a product costing $2 or $3. It will be simpler with LEDs. More importantly, LEDs can be dimmed to a fraction of a percent of full output with no technical problems, not the 10% or 20% of dimmable CFLs. Indeed, they run more efficiently at lower currents, exactly the opposite of incandescent or flouro.

To me the future is looking bright. We're living in exciting times. Instead of mourning over what may be lost, enjoy living in the midst of a bunch of sea changes in how we do things. Not just lighting, either. My guess is transportation undergoes more changes in the next 20 years than in the previous 100. Look for EVs, high-speed rail combined with a major resurgence of railroads, more and better public transport, perhaps even maglevs, in the next generation. And I think solar power is on the verge of becoming mainstream.


----------



## 2xTrinity

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> This has been a pretty civil discussion. I think what most of us could agree on is the government sticks it's grubby fingers into WAY too many pies!
> 
> I do believe that by 4 years time we may not recognize what we have by then. I'm sure manufacturers will take up the slack of dimmable and otherwise incan-like behavour too!


The problem with the way that dimmers work is they simply chop off a portion of the sine wave. It's nearly impossible to run any sort of electronics off of a "dirty" signal like that, except for simple resistors (incandescent lamps). The dimmable CFLs that do exist (not with dedicated dimming ballasts, but retrofits to work on existing dimmers) only dim to about 30%, and do even that poorly. That's not the fault of the manufacturers though, given the circumstances.



> Exactly. *It is MY CHOICE*....that is the heart of all of our objections to this BS law. There is nothing about incans that I "mind." It is also a joke to think this ban will affect the overall energy supply of the USA, any more than banning my beloved 7 GPF toilet will fix whatever imaginary water issue the government and environmental activists decided must be addressed.



In this point you are correct. Most incandescent lights for example are also only run at night, when power plants are often idling anyway. In homes lit with electric heat, they are actually not even wasting _anything_ as they simply offset load from the heaters. Facilities that use lighting during the day (and that require air conditioning), just about exclusively use T8 fluorescent lamps already. I'm hoping that there will be some redeeming consequences of this in that more alternative lighting fixture solutions become available (meaning purpose-built, dedicated fluorescent and LED fixtures, not heavily compromised screw-in retrofits), but I have my doubts that that will actually happen as a result of this law.

Another technology I'd like to see available for general use is HIR (halogen infrared reflective), basically a coated incan lamp that's about 50% more efficient than standard halogen lamps. I'd like to see these come out for "retrofit" use. These will qualify for the restriction in this particular bill, it's not a ban on incan technology as much as an elimination of the _most inefficient_ incans, while still allowing some (halogens, HIR). Banning incans altogether I agree would be a major problem for a lot of applications, where no viable alternative exists.




> Exactly what I've been saying all along. People are getting all bent out of shape here worrying about scenarios which may never come to pass. The free market will not leave the huge voids which will exist after the ban takes effect. As for dimmability, that will come with LEDs. The reason so few CFLs are dimmable is that flouro tubes are technically a lot harder to dim. IIRC, you need to _increase_ the voltage as you drop the current. Also, past some point you need to keep the cathodes heated to sustain the arc. This makes for a lot more complexity than can be designed into a product costing $2 or $3. It will be simpler with LEDs. More importantly, LEDs can be dimmed to a fraction of a percent of full output with no technical problems, not the 10% or 20% of dimmable CFLs. Indeed, they run more efficiently at lower currents, exactly the opposite of incandescent or flouro.


LEDs are more efficient when dimmed (the way that people who have dimmers tend to run the lights _most_ of the time -- it's usually that they want dim light, and only occasionally bright light). Flourescents I believe maintain constant, or _slightly_ drop in efficiency as they are dimmed (not the severe drop of efficiencies experienced by dimming incans). Dimmability with LEDs would still be most efficiently done by varying current on the DC-side of the circuit, it may still require a fair bit of gymnastics to convert the hacked up sine wave produced by the triac dimmers into a DC output suitable for LEDs, but not as difficult as externally dimmable CFL ballasts. Another problem will be variation of color temperature -- a lot of people might not mind the color temp staying the same as the lamp is dimmed, but one of the most common disappointments I've heard about fluorescents is that they don't "warmify" as they are dimmed, which is a non-trivial engineering feat to emulate. That's why for mood and accent lighting, the availability of things like HIR incans would be a better way to go (still an improvement in efficiency, but without expensive circuitry). For genreal use (not ambiance), I actually prefer dimmers that _don't_ change color temperature -- my eyes have a hard time focusing with the reddish color of dimmed incans.


----------



## jtr1962

LuxLuthor said:


> jtr1962, I think we each made our respective points and this has gone about as far as it can go.


Agreed. I'm getting weary of the discussion anyway. We're probably both beating a dead horse at this point. 

Also, you're not a Luddite, it's just that the paragraph I quoted from you sounded like it might come from someone who was. Sorry if I misinterpreted your words. Glad also you might be onboard for EVs should one come out which meets your needs. I've already seen that car you linked to. I like it. It's exactly like the futuristic vehicles I thought we would all be using now, rather than disappointingly boring SUVs. 



> More importantly, have a Merry Christmas if that is a holiday you celebrate. If not, then never mind.


Same to you! I don't celebrate the religious aspect of Christmas of course, but I do enjoy the season. It gives me an excuse to put up pretty lights outside the house. This is the first year we're all LED actually.


----------



## Phredd

*Mercury not so harmless*



James S said:


> But there is a lot of completely unwarranted fear of mercury lately. Even with all the CF bulbs in your house, your personal exposure to mercury in the environment is lower now than it has been in recorded history. So nothing to worry about there.



If the fear is completely unwarranted, then why are there warnings about proper disposal and warnings that if a bulb breaks, to immediately don a mask and gloves? These CFL bulbs are NOT environmentally friendly. It's so hypocritical that the greenies were recently complaining about mercury in computer displays, but they're okay with homes each having perhaps dozens of CFL bulbs.

This was driven by the producers of CFL bulbs; not for the benefit of the environment and not for the benefit of users, many of whom tire of the flicker and color. I agree with everyone who predicts that in a couple years or so LED bulbs will better than today's incandescent bulbs. A couple days ago I predicted that Cree will benefit from this ban, and this morning on Fox, an analyst also predicted that Cree will jump to $50 without the competition of the low cost of incandescent bulbs.

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2273949&postcount=35


----------



## LukeA

*Re: Mercury not so harmless*



Phredd said:


> If the fear is completely unwarranted, then why are there warnings about proper disposal and warnings that if a bulb breaks, to immediately don a mask and gloves? These CFL bulbs are NOT environmentally friendly. It's so hypocritical that the greenies were recently complaining about mercury in computer displays, but they're okay with homes each having perhaps dozens of CFL bulbs.
> 
> This was driven by the producers of CFL bulbs; not for the benefit of the environment and not for the benefit of users, many of whom tire of the flicker and color. I agree with everyone who predicts that in a couple years or so LED bulbs will better than today's incandescent bulbs. A couple days ago I predicted that Cree will benefit from this ban, and this morning on Fox, an analyst also predicted that Cree will jump to $50 without the competition of the low cost of incandescent bulbs.
> 
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2273949&postcount=35



A CFL, even with its mercury content, results in a net of less mercury entering the environment over its lifetime than an incandescent bulb, because of the reduced power usage, if the power comes from coal, (which it probably does) because coal contains traces of mercury and other nasty substances.


----------



## James S

*Re: Mercury not so harmless*



LukeA said:


> A CFL, even with its mercury content, results in a net of less mercury entering the environment over its lifetime than an incandescent bulb, because of the reduced power usage, if the power comes from coal, (which it probably does) because coal contains traces of mercury and other nasty substances.



It's not just "traces" it's HUGE amounts because we're burning hundreds of tons of it a day. So even a trace in the coal turns out to be a huge daily emission. 

And I just have to laugh when the people that say Nuclear is so dangerous because we have to bury the partially spent fuel which volume is less than the desk I'm sitting at the end of it's life, and then with a straight face can consider carbon sequestering a GIGATON of compressed carbon dioxide gas every year...

But it's hard to make comparisons at that level for any of this stuff.


----------



## LukeA

*Re: Mercury not so harmless*



James S said:


> And I just have to laugh when the people that say Nuclear is so dangerous because we have to bury the partially spent fuel which volume is less than the desk I'm sitting at the end of it's life, and then with a straight face can consider carbon sequestering a GIGATON of compressed carbon dioxide gas every year...



And do you know where the energy to capture and sequester all that carbon comes from? From carbon! 

It would take ~240 new Siemens AP1000 nuclear reactors to replace all carbon-dependent power generation on the United States. And the waste those plants would produce could be stored in any one of hundreds of mines in the country. All of that waste could fit in a volume smaller than my house. Plus the lower operational costs of nuclear plants, becuase they don't need to buy millions of tons of fuel per year.

Not to mention the printed solar cells that will be coming to market that can cost-effectively be installed virtually anywhere, namely flat and sloped roofs. Even at relatively low efficiency, large numbers of these cells could offset a significant portion of coal-based power.

There are options now. It's just a matter of how long it will take for these solutions to be implemented.


----------



## EricB

> There has not yet been any indication that LED colors are going to be acceptable to me, despite the improvements over the last 5 years.


 Well, if it's the beige 2700K incandescent color you like, LED Effects has had LED's matching this color for 2 years. Not sure why this is not appearing along with the 3500K stuff calling itself "incandescent white".

As for the EV's; it seems the companies don't want it. But to try to show they are doing something about the environment, they come up with a compromise: HYBRIDS. Have to keep just a little bit of the combustion in there! And a lot of the public probably feel they do not have the power withough that "vroom!" If they can't get pure electric to work, then fuelcells sound nice as well. According to Howstuffworks, an engine can supposedly be made to run off of AIR!

As for the toilets, this had driven me up the wall as well. They can make the bowl smaller, but it's the drain pipe of the bowl (the impression of which you can see on the outside of all of these mini-bowls) they should not have made smaller. You're using up way much more water plunging, and flusing over and over several times. But that's runaway environmentalism for you. They also feel if you eat "the right way"; it won't be problem. Rampant idealism! EVERYthing has to be right for ANYthing to work!


----------



## James S

It took a long time for the CF colors to come to a point where I can use them in more places too. I use 2700k for individual lamps in dark places as I just dont like the "grey" effect from 15 watts of 5 or 6000k lamps by themselves. But if you get enough of that color then it's terrific for bright room or task lighting. It just doesn't work at all as just a lamp in a dim room. Looks like a dark cloudy depressing day to me  But the 100 watts of CF that run my kitchen (down from the 600 watts of incandescent previous) run at 3500k and I love it!

Hopefully the bulk of these CF bulbs I'm running here will continue to slowly cook their ballasts until the LED bulbs come of age. But I may have to stock up on some 100 watters for some of the room lights that are on dimmers that simply can't be replaced without doing a lot of extra work...


----------



## made in china

Many people keep assuming that LEDs will dim like incans. That is wrong, if you are thinking that a LED lamp assy can screw into a incan fixture that has a standard dimmer. LED's need constant voltage/current to operate correctly. The most common and sensible way to dim LEDs is with PWM. So, in effect the incan dimmer will be totally useless. LED lighting needs PFC supplies with PWM dimming, you won't likely find such a nice doo-hicky that'll retrofit current lighting.

I would guess someone would develop LED retro lighting that could be dimmed partially, much like the dimmable CFL's. But, they would not dim the same as a incan due to the limitations of operating a PFC supply on chopped AC then expecting it to PWM the LED while maintaing good regulation. That'll be tricky. It would be easier to have special LED fixtures with special wall dimmers that are designed to dim LED.


----------



## LukeA

made in china said:


> Many people keep assuming that LEDs will dim like incans. That is wrong, if you are thinking that a LED lamp assy can screw into a incan fixture that has a standard dimmer. LED's need constant voltage/current to operate correctly. The most common and sensible way to dim LEDs is with PWM. So, in effect the incan dimmer will be totally useless. LED lighting needs PFC supplies with PWM dimming, you won't likely find such a nice doo-hicky that'll retrofit current lighting.
> 
> I would guess someone would develop LED retro lighting that could be dimmed partially, much like the dimmable CFL's. But, they would not dim the same as a incan due to the limitations of operating a PFC supply on chopped AC then expecting it to PWM the LED while maintaing good regulation. That'll be tricky. It would be easier to have special LED fixtures with special wall dimmers that are designed to dim LED.



I believe that that's what everyone has been suggesting.


----------



## jtr1962

made in china said:


> Many people keep assuming that LEDs will dim like incans. That is wrong, if you are thinking that a LED lamp assy can screw into a incan fixture that has a standard dimmer. LED's need constant voltage/current to operate correctly. The most common and sensible way to dim LEDs is with PWM. So, in effect the incan dimmer will be totally useless. LED lighting needs PFC supplies with PWM dimming, you won't likely find such a nice doo-hicky that'll retrofit current lighting.


I don't think this is that difficult of a problem to solve. The LED array can use an offline driver such as the HV9910. It can use an RC filter to convert the raw, duty-cycle triac controlled AC waveform into a variable DC voltage. This voltage in turn can be applied to the control pin to adjust the LED current from full at a high duty cycle to near-zero at a low one. In fact, I was attempting to design just such a circuit but unfortunately I had trouble getting the HV9910 to even work normally. Maybe I used the wrong inductor, or MOSFET. However, my idea remains sound, and would work well on a circuit using a functioning HV9910. There is also the PFC-corrected HV9931 which can be used in a similar manner with a few extra parts.

BTW, dimming LEDs with PWM makes no sense to me at all. Electronically, it's easier and less "noisy" to just vary the current. And there's no chance at all of flicker, plus the LED gets way more efficient as it's dimmed.


----------



## made in china

jtr1962 said:


> I don't think this is that difficult of a problem to solve. The LED array can use an offline driver such as the HV9910. It can use an RC filter to convert the raw, duty-cycle triac controlled AC waveform into a variable DC voltage. This voltage in turn can be applied to the control pin to adjust the LED current from full at a high duty cycle to near-zero at a low one. In fact, I was attempting to design just such a circuit but unfortunately I had trouble getting the HV9910 to even work normally. Maybe I used the wrong inductor, or MOSFET. However, my idea remains sound, and would work well on a circuit using a functioning HV9910. There is also the PFC-corrected HV9931 which can be used in a similar manner with a few extra parts.
> 
> BTW, dimming LEDs with PWM makes no sense to me at all. Electronically, it's easier and less "noisy" to just vary the current. And there's no chance at all of flicker, plus the LED gets way more efficient as it's dimmed.


I'm no LED expert. But, I have heard that white LEDs color shift. Of course, if you use a RGB lamp, you would not experience color shifting initially, however you would need to deal with the fact that each led color would completely "turn-off" at different drive levels as you dim them. That is something you'd need to deal with because as a LED RGB lamp is dimmed, you may have a color drop out at the lower levels, so you would need to engineer a solution of sorts. What do you think?


----------



## jtr1962

made in china said:


> I'm no LED expert. But, I have heard that white LEDs color shift. Of course, if you use a RGB lamp, you would not experience color shifting initially, however you would need to deal with the fact that each led color would completely "turn-off" at different drive levels as you dim them. That is something you'd need to deal with because as a LED RGB lamp is dimmed, you may have a color drop out at the lower levels, so you would need to engineer a solution of sorts. What do you think?


I agree for a RGB lamp this wouldn't work well. However, for an RGB lamp you would probably need to have some sort of feedback loop to maintain a proper color balance anyway even to account for different aging rates of the RGB emitters. The same feedback loop would be able to dim all three channels in unison, or if you prefer to warm the light as it's dimmed, also decrease the CCT (I'm not thrilled about that personally as I have a terrible time seeing under reddish, dimmed incandescent). RGB gives a lot more possibilities, but the complexity also increases exponentially. Still, I feel once we develop cost-effective sensor/feedback circuits it will be the way of the future. Besides all the features mentioned, you can also adjust the same lamp to whatever CCT suits your tastes. In essence, one part does what you need 8 or 9 for now (i.e. 2700K, 3000K, 3500K, 4100K, 4500K, 5000K, 5500K, 6000K, 6500K)


----------



## made in china

jtr1962 said:


> I agree for a RGB lamp this wouldn't work well. However, for an RGB lamp you would probably need to have some sort of feedback loop to maintain a proper color balance anyway even to account for different aging rates of the RGB emitters. The same feedback loop would be able to dim all three channels in unison, or if you prefer to warm the light as it's dimmed, also decrease the CCT (I'm not thrilled about that personally as I have a terrible time seeing under reddish, dimmed incandescent). RGB gives a lot more possibilities, but the complexity also increases exponentially. Still, I feel once we develop cost-effective sensor/feedback circuits it will be the way of the future. Besides all the features mentioned, you can also adjust the same lamp to whatever CCT suits your tastes. In essence, one part does what you need 8 or 9 for now (i.e. 2700K, 3000K, 3500K, 4100K, 4500K, 5000K, 5500K, 6000K, 6500K)



That's great, and I agree with you. A few things to note about RGB lamps: 

It'd be very easy to end up with a "odd" color if there is not enough engineering put into the product. RGB applications are very unforgiving when it comes to color mixing. A slight shift or defect in one color channel drive circuit would cause undesirable results.

Some type of cheap CCD that could give spectrum based feed back might be nice for premium applications.

In multi-lamp installations, color matching inaccuracies will be even more obvious between the lamps.

As exciting as new technology is, it's hard to beat the simplicity of traditional light sources. We can really over-complicate things here, and complicated electronics that fail in this day and age just end up in the trash, filling our landfills. So....


----------



## Melchior

*Join the Club.*

This was expected; Most civilized nations are moving to ban (or restrict) Incandescent lighting.

I can say this: Finally!


Indeed LED can be built into/for any fixture, especially weird ones.

CFL's do indeed have dimming problems, but thats because most dimmers really mess with the AC. (infact IIRC Dimmers actually DRAIN power in addition to getting hot, and making your incandescents look really pathetic)

Either a RGB LED or a High efficiency LED will fit the bill. (err socket)

I think there are switch mode power supplies that can work with 80-220+ Volts at 50/60 Hz, I don't see why a carefully designed supply would not work for a AC Dimmer as well.

Also whats all the worry about? the regulations said nothing about 220V bulbs...
220V work in 110V at a slightly lower light output...

I know where you can get 220V'ers cheap!


----------



## turbodog

LuxLuthor said:


> ...
> 
> There is plenty of water to cover the waste smell if you like to sit and read a while  and many guests and family over the years have praised how well the toilets work at our house. I wouldn't sell them for $5,000 each--they are that much superior. *So enjoy you rinky-dink water saver model all you want.*
> 
> ...




Well, thanks for your kind attitude. I'll put in another vote for "modern low-volume toilets flush like crazy". Our kohlers will flush anything you throw at them.

But don't bother replying to me. Your attitude and words have made me decide to add you to my ignore list.

In the meantime I'll be enjoying a superior toilet AND low water bills. I'll think of you the next time I pinch off a loaf.

:toilet:


----------



## James S

Ah, generalizations  Just because the low flow toilet that you have sucks, they all must suck... I'm sure they don't cause I've seen several different kinds in new constructions. Some I wouldn't have purchased for myself ever as they were horrid. But there are better ones.

As far as dimmers, they do NOT increase the power usage. Well.. they do sink a little power but it's minimal. It's a rule of thumb for thermal issues that you need to plan to dissipate a watt of heat through the dimmer for every 100 watts of load. So you'll waste the power from a 4 watt nightlight bulb to be able to dim a 400 watt load. It makes no difference.

While a 100 watt bulb dimmed to 40% uses much less power, it also does not put out as much light as a 40 watt bulb at 100% power. So where you dont need more light, use a smaller bulb and not a big bulb on a dimmer.


----------



## LukeA

turbodog said:


> Well, thanks for your kind attitude. I'll put in another vote for "modern low-volume toilets flush like crazy". Our kohlers will flush anything you throw at them.
> 
> But don't bother replying to me. Your attitude and words have made me decide to add you to my ignore list.
> 
> In the meantime I'll be enjoying a superior toilet AND low water bills. I'll think of you the next time I pinch off a loaf.
> 
> :toilet:



That's because modern low-flow toilets have been designed to waste less water in front of the sewage than older models. For example, a 6-gal flush old toilet will flush as much as 4 or 5 gallons in front of the sewage, wasting the water. Modern low flow toilets are designed to maximize the amount of water behind the sewage, which means that that same amount of water will carry the waste further in the sewer line from your house to the main line under the street, which reduces the chance of clogging, even in sewers that are too big or too steep. That means that low flow toilets are better for sewers as well as lowering water bills.


----------



## Silverliner25s

Interesting thread, I am aware that current incandescents are set to be discontinued starting 4 years from now. Let me explain my understanding of the bill clearly. Between 2012 and 2014, the wattage of the 310-2600 lumen range of incandescents must be cut by nearly 30%. By 2020, the minimum of 45 lumens per watt will become a requirement. The energy bill generally only affects general service incandescent lamps in the 40-135 (they say 40-100 watt but since they include 2600 lumens I'm including 135w) watt range. Other types won't be banned but wattage limitations may be set for rough service, vanity globes, and a few other types of incandescents. The bill is totally technology neutral, so LEDs, super efficient incandescents, halogen IRs, CFLs, and other types that may arise will be permitted.

Some of you complained about the yellowish color of incandescents. Let me point it out, incandescents are still technically full spectrum because they are blackbody emitters just like the sun. That's why they look just like sunrises and sunsets. Basically "warm white" versions of broad daylight. I found 2700K CFLs to be worse than incandescents for reading because the color is slightly more hued. I like full spectrum fluorescent tubes though, they have been around for much longer than you think. Duro-Test introduced the Vita-Lite fluorescent lamp in '67, and the major manufacturers have been making Chroma/Colortone/Design 50 lamps since the 70s. They are mellow and pleasant in many applications.

I also have noticed some commentary about the quality of incandescent lamps. I have done lighting maintenance at a couple places before. I have done incandescent, fluorescent and HID. I found the GE incandescents to be extremely consistent. They were used 12 hours a day, 6 days a week on average. The 100w ones lasted about 2 months or 700-800 hours, just as promised on the packages. The 60w ones lasted like 4 months. They were regular 120v soft whites you buy in the stores. The only compliant of mine with GE is that their 15w soft whites only last half their rated lives. I used those in the vintage late 30s exit lights. I also used Sylvania and Philips lamps, they are slightly less consistent (a few of Sylvania's bulbs failed fast) than the GEs but still decent. Eventually I was told to replace some of the most commonly used incandescents to CFLs. While I had some bad experiences with CFLs at home, they do very well at the workplace, especially in hard to reach places because they don't burn out as much. This is where CFLs truly shine, and the slightly lower CRI of CFLs is not critical in these applications.

Meeting the 2012-2014 deadline is easy with halogen IR technology and maybe other improvements to the tungsten filament. In addition, a different type of incandescent lamp using a hafnium carbide filament can reach over 60 lumens per watt. But who knows, maybe LEDs will get super efficient? The reason GE wants to sell the high efficiency incandescents is to make profits by selling high volumes of lamps like they always had for decades as well as keeping their US incandescent factories open. Sylvania also plans to introduce a higher efficiency incandescent lamp.

Just my two cents worth.


----------



## made in china

Silverliner25s said:


> The reason GE wants to sell the high efficiency incandescents is to make profits by selling high volumes of lamps like they always had for decades as well as keeping their US incandescent factories open.



Where did you find this out? The last A19 style GE 60W lamps we bought were made in china. I won't buy from them again unless they are made in USA. Sylvania and others are still made in USA.


----------



## Silverliner25s

The 60w GE bulbs made in China, were the bulbs you got the Reveals? Many of GE's Reveal bulbs are made in China. Also in '04 there was a run of Chinese GE soft white bulbs that were awful in quality. Thankfully, they have disappeared from store shelves.


----------



## James S

not to highjack the thread, but GE quality in everything is going downhill as far as I can tell. I've purchased several GE major appliances in the last few years, and vowed never to tough the stuff again. Even the little GE toaster that I broke down and bought a week ago is garbage. They aren't making the transition to overseas manufacturing without serious difficulties.


----------



## pertinax

Even the dimmable CFLs don't work with X-10 systems. I should know; I've tried them all. So... you can either rewire your house so that you can use X10 appliance switches (at triple the price of the normal switches), or pitch all your X10 gear.

And of course the ban is silly anyway-- the incan bulbs are only "inefficient" IN THE SUMMER. In the wintertime, they put out heat right where you want it-- in the room you're in. They do not figure this in to their "energy savings" calculations. In an ideal world, you'd run the CFLs in the summer, and incans in the winter.

Pertinax


----------



## Phredd

pertinax said:


> And of course the ban is silly anyway-- the incan bulbs are only "inefficient" IN THE SUMMER. In the wintertime, they put out heat right where you want it-- in the room you're in.



Any idea on how efficient they are as heaters? Compared to gas heat? Even compared to baseboard electric heat?


----------



## 2xTrinity

Phredd said:


> Any idea on how efficient they are as heaters? Compared to gas heat? Even compared to baseboard electric heat?


These sorts of things are notoriously difficult to calculate, it will really depend on each location. Gas is usually cheaper per unit energy, but one problem with gas is that the furnaces tend to be central heating, so a significant fraction of the heat is lost in the ducts etc. Replacing a portion of that heat with incan heat is probably ever so slightly more expensive. 

In the case of electric space heating of a room, running incan lamps, or any sort of electric appliances for that matter is (ultimately) just another form of electric heat, so should theoretically cost the same as running an electric space heater. One exception might be recessed lighting, where a portion of the heat will escape into the walls via the fixture due to conductivity with the bulb base. 

One final point to remember is that the issue is reversed for air-conditoined spaces, in that case the "penalty" for running incans is more as the excess heat must be forcibly pumped out. In my case, this is more relevant as I live in Southern California and typically never run any sort of heaters. The issue is also moot when talking about outdoor lighting.


----------



## DM51

Actually, I am not sure it is too difficult to calculate this. 

A perfectly efficient LED (such a thing does not yet exist) would in theory emit 240 lumens/Watt IIRC (someone please correct me if that figure is wrong). 

The same 240 lm/W theoretical maximum would therefore apply to any emitter of light. 

A 100-Watt incan bulb would therefore emit 24,000 lm if it was perfectly efficient.

Let's say you measure the luminous output of your 100-Watt incan bulb and it emits only 4,800 lm. You would know that only 20% of the energy, or 20W, was being converted into light. The remaining 80W would therefore be emitted as heat.

Lol, there is probably a huge hole somewhere in my logic, and I am sure someone will now point it out!


----------



## jtr1962

DM51 said:


> Lol, there is probably a huge hole somewhere in my logic, and I am sure someone will now point it out!


Yep, there is. For any light emitter the heating will be equal to the wattage put into the fixture less any losses emitted out the window. That includes a 100% efficient LED. Eventually all of the light is absorbed somewhere, turning into heat. Now in most homes the losses out the window likely amount to only a few percent of the light emitted, and even less of the total power since the light emitter is far from 100% efficient. So your 100 watt, 24000 lumen LED will heat an average room as much as a 100 watt incandescent bulb. The only difference is that an average user who might now have 500 watts (~7500 lumens) of incandescent lighting in a room for a decent light level would only need perhaps 30 watts of 100% efficient LED lighting for the same light level. Therefore, there will be less heating from the lighting. Of course, should the same person desire 500 watts and 120,000 lumens of LEDs in that room, the heating will be the same.

Also note that practically speaking, LED emitted spectrums will range anywhere from the low 300s to about 400 lm/W. There's no sense imitating a ~200 lm/W broad spectrum. Drop a little off, and the CRI only drops to about 98, but the emitted efficacy increases to the low 300s. Have three or four will chosen colored emitters, and you can get a CRI in the high 80s with an emitted efficacy around 400 lm/W. So 500 watts of 100% efficient LEDs are likely to be close to 200,000 lumens, or equivalent to over 10,000 watts of incandescents.


----------



## DM51

I don't think losses out of the window are relevant here. I was referring to the _production_ of heat, not how efficiently you use it. If you put a heater outside your house, you would waste 100% of the heat into the atmosphere, but you could not call the heater itself 0% efficient.

Light bulbs consume energy and convert it into heat and light. Nothing else. They don't produce any other form of energy, such as sound (except for the fizzing noise you sometimes hear with fluorescent lights) or any other form of energy. It is all heat and light. 

So, the energy consumed that is not emitted as light is all converted into heat. The percentages of each will differ, depending on the emitter type, but the figure will always add up to 100%.


----------



## James S

pertinax said:


> Even the dimmable CFLs don't work with X-10 systems. I should know; I've tried them all. So... you can either rewire your house so that you can use X10 appliance switches (at triple the price of the normal switches), or pitch all your X10 gear.



Hello Pertinax, I do a lot of work with X10, actually write computer control software for X10 (and other things) called XTension I have LOTS of those switches in the house and CFL's are definitely a problem with the el-cheapo X10 wall switches. i wrote a couple of articles:

http://www.machomeautomation.com/article.php?story=CFL1

http://www.machomeautomation.com/article.php?story=CFL2

if you have multiple fixtures you can often replace all but 1 regular bulb with CF's and as long as there is 1 bulb for the trickle power to passthrough for the switch it will work just fine. I've done this in several places with very acceptable results. Not ideal, but it might get you working with them. MOre info at those links.



> And of course the ban is silly anyway-- the incan bulbs are only "inefficient" IN THE SUMMER. In the wintertime, they put out heat right where you want it-- in the room you're in. They do not figure this in to their "energy savings" calculations. In an ideal world, you'd run the CFLs in the summer, and incans in the winter.



Only if you have all electric heat. If you get your heat from gas then thats probably because gas is cheaper per therm than electric where you are, and if you use a heat pump then it's going to be much more efficient than the pure electric heater that your light bulbs are. But if you're on all electric heat, then yes, there is no difference in efficiency between your baseboards and your table lamps. In the summer though, I've had really impressive savings in my AC bill by converting to almost all CF"s over the last few years. My AC will actually cool my kitchen with all the lights on now and it cycles on and off even. When we first moved into this house with rows of 75 watt can lights the AC never kept up while they were on and never turned off the whole day if you had to have the lights on.


----------



## VidPro

LUX Luthor, i had a weird idea this last week, and figured that stocking up on INCAN might not be as valuable as stocking up on CFLs 
after all if everyone has to change, and its "regulated" the laws of "supply and your damned" comes into play, and the CFL might be the "Hot" item to have owned before the mandate .
i am sure sombodys stocks will change.
market in capitolistic society is based on need=greed, "supply and demand", if you ever find a truely capitolistic society  the item most needed will be the one that costs the most.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Ahhh, a quick revisit to my "Govt knows best" topic. I now have what I conservatively calculate to be a 30 year supply of all the incan bulbs of every type I will need in all my fixtures. VidPro, I don't like CFL's, so I'm not going to waste money buying something I don't like or want to use. They look like crap, and don't fit most of the custom fixtures in my house.

Same environmentalist driven illogical approach to toilets. We don't have a water shortage where I live. We have never had a water shortage where I live. Let them use toy toilets where there are too many people for the water supply.....but noooo...the enviro-terrorists must get their way forcing their regulations and bans upon everyone because they know best.

Same illogical approach to banning US offshore oil drilling, resulting in other countries drilling in the same waters instead. Not developing nuclear energy, hydrogen energy, clean coal burning, wasting more energy converting corn to ethanol are more examples of their infinite wisdom. Another example--not allowing sensible logging and replanting--resulting in catastrophic forest fires and more air pollution than all the SUV's on the road. And don't get me started on the imaginary man-made global warming poppycock...just keep your fur coats because the solar cycle experts are certain of a coming mini-ice age.

Oh yeah, Rush Limbaugh is my hero.


----------



## 2xTrinity

> LUX Luthor, i had a weird idea this last week, and figured that stocking up on INCAN might not be as valuable as stocking up on CFLs
> after all if everyone has to change, and its "regulated" the laws of "supply and your damned" comes into play, and the CFL might be the "Hot" item to have owned before the mandate .


From what I understand, CFLs are already heavily subsidized, which is why at most stores in my area they're actually CHEAPER than comparable incandescents now. ($1.50/ea as opposed to more like $3/ea for a comparable incan) If anything though, the CFLs will be less attractive after the incan ban, as incandescents will be about 60% more efficient (some of these are already coming onto the market where I live), so the efficiency gain of the CFL will be less.

For retrofits, I'd rather see more research pumped into improving HIR technology, I believe by improving the coatings used, that we could see big improvements there. For example, a higher color-temperature incan lamp could be done not by simply filtering the red light with tinted glass, but reflecting some of it and re-heating the filament. That way there would be a tint change without an efficiency loss. There's also the issue of filaments being easily focusable, and being able to tolerate conditons completely ill-suited for LEDs at present (most incandescent fixtures fall into that category...)

I am not really satisfied with CFLs. By trying to cram an entire ballast and lamp into such a small system, for hte cheapest price psosible, they've ended up a product that is unreliable, and does not distribute light exactly the same as a stock incan lamp, result in weird effects in some fixtures. I like the choice of higher color temps (I prefer 3500k at home in general) but would rather see the promotion of good purpose-built fixtures with high-quality dedicated ballasts -- even linear fixtures -- over kludgy retrofit bulbs. IMHO the diffused light of a good linear tube is more useful than trying to emulate the "point source" of an incan lamp anyway, which ends up resulting in about double the fixture losses, and still results in annoying shadows all over the place. Rooms where I've installed linear fixtures are much nicer as the diffused light eliminated irritated shadows.


----------



## dulridge

LuxLuthor said:


> I have not had more than 1-2 bulbs break off in the base in more than 10 years. If that happens, I simply push a potato into it and twist it right out. Grandma taught me that.
> ​



My grandma taught me how to make lights out of the cores of rushes. They sure didn't have electric light around when she was little. Her father died when he went looking for a gas leak with a candle - unfortunately he found it.

So the potato trick is new to me - can't remember when / or even if a bulb has ever done that to me. I imagine that it would still be a good idea to turn off the power first, or does the US have non-conductive potatoes.:nana:

A commoner problem for me is the insulation falling off ancient wiring when you replace a bulb. We use bayonet bulbs which can require significant force to insert in the newer "safer" plastic bulb holders. This tends to lead to a loud bang and some nasty smells when you switch the light back on. What genius fitted safety light fitments onto 40 year old wiring? Yes, I did replace the wiring.


----------



## dulridge

2xTrinity said:


> From what I understand, CFLs are already heavily subsidized, which is why at most stores in my area they're actually CHEAPER than comparable incandescents now. ($1.50/ea as opposed to more like $3/ea for a comparable incan) If anything though, the CFLs will be less attractive after the incan ban, as incandescents will be about 60% more efficient (some of these are already coming onto the market where I live), so the efficiency gain of the CFL will be less.



They most certainly are not here. I find I need bright light here at times and prefer not to have to drag out extra point sources to do this - I have not seen a 200W general usage incandescent bulb in years - I used to put them in lots of things. 150W bulbs are getting hard to find - the most used light in my house NEEDS that for me to be able to see when going to the bathroom (I really ought to rewire that lighting circuit to fit more lights in but that will be expensive). CFL bulbs here cost like $15 each for the garbage cheap ones and are wildly optimistically rated - the usual 20W ones that claim to be as bright as a 100W bulb are more like a 60W bulb which I can buy for pennies. I can get about 5 of those for a dollar. The really cheap (IKEA about $4 for a 20W one) ones don't last as long a normal incandescent in my experience.

Most of the bulbs here are CFLs - our energy costs a lot more, petrol is about $9 a (UK - about 20% larger) gallon, electricity costs more than 26 cents/kWh, I know it has gone up about 14% since that old bill that I took the price from. - so my lightbulb choice is dictated by what I can afford. I dislike nasty CFLs intensely - there may be good ones but they'd not be affordable.

Our national media got hold of the mercury content of CFLs between Christmas and New Year - it is likely that our politicians will feel the need to "do something" about this is as legally these things are "hazardous waste" and so cost a fortune to dispose of "safely", i.e., pay someone to ship them to India or China. We are supposed to take them to the nearest recycling point - in my case $50 worth of petrol away. For most electronics the place I am seriously expected to take stuff is $18 worth of petrol and 2 hours out of my life away. And I live in the middle of a city of 202,370 people.

Oddly enough acrylic paint is also "hazardous waste"- I was needing some paint to decorate a patient's house and the Works dept folk leapt on me with glee and offered me about 2 tons of part used paint cans that they would have had to pay a fortune to have taken away (and probably shipped to China)

"Greenness" and sanity apparently are not related. Which is hardly surprising given where I work.


----------



## LuxLuthor

2xTrinity said:


> From what I understand, CFLs are already heavily subsidized, which is why at most stores in my area they're actually CHEAPER than comparable incandescents now. ($1.50/ea as opposed to more like $3/ea for a comparable incan) If anything though, the CFLs will be less attractive after the incan ban, as incandescents will be about 60% more efficient (some of these are already coming onto the market where I live), so the efficiency gain of the CFL will be less.



You missed my post #52 with picture in this thread. 50 cents for my 100W incan bulbs, and about 40 cents a bulb for the rest of them I got at Benny's. I didn't care about the price in particular, more that I got what I wanted and that fit my fixtures.


----------



## AmnestyC3

I don't think I care for having these wasteful,greedy,unethical goverment crooks tell me what I can and can't have without exclusion.

I like CFLs but I have a house full of antiques that won't allow their utilization and these idiots are just caving to big corporations who want to sell you $5 lightbulb instead of a $.95 lightbulb.

Oh,hi,my name is Mike and I'm a flashaholic


----------



## Flic

[QUOTE

"Greenness" and sanity apparently are not related. Which is hardly surprising given where I work.[/QUOTE]

Well said. I just found this thread and it is of concern to me too as the same ban is likely to happen here. 

Contrary to the opinions of many, I have found that CFLs tend to burn out as quickly or more so than the incans I have used all my life (perhaps they do not stand up well to being cycled on and off that often). 

So to save a tiny amount of electricity I have to buy CFLs at $8 (give or take) instead of an incan that costs pennies. I personally have seen little evidence of longer life of CFLs so I am spending 10 times more to save a few cents on electricity. Then there is the disposal issue. Also, has anyone researched the difference in energy used to produce a CFL compared to incans?

And as LuxLuthor has pointed out, the cost of replacing fixtures, cabinetry, etc. And how much energy is wasted by manufacturing and distributing a replacement fixture when the existing one works. Then the old one has to be disposed of. How much energy is used in that process? Think of it, taking the fixtures to the recycling depot, sorting of parts, transporting components to recycling facility, metling down of used materials, etc.... (not to mention shipping the raw materials back to China to be used and shipped back here). It may make economic sense, but if the goal is reduced energy consumption, the argument is weak.

Although I am a devoted LED flashoholic, I still perfer the quality of light offered by incans when I am at home.

The other problem with the approach taken by the US government is that there are more gains to be had by simply reducing usage rather than chasing after ever greater efficiency. And those gains are immediate! Turn off the lights and appliance that are not being used and you'll save a bunch - right now and without having to lay out any cash. Most people I know leave televisions on all day long, sometimes even if they leave the house. How many folks leave lights on in rooms they do not use? (Insert your example here).

Now I am not saying more efficient lights are bad, only that they should enter the market place on the usual replacement cycle. It would not make sense to force all Americans to destroy their current cars and buy a new more fuel efficient car on a certain date - or to ban the sale of replacement parts for non fuel-efficient cars. Consumers will no doubt consider efficiency and running costs when they are ready to replace their current machines.

Sorry about the rant, but I am a management consultant and I constantly see governments spending their way to immaginary efficiency for tomorrow while they ignore the easy inexpensive gains they could realize today. One government I worked with had the mandate of reducing the size of the public service. "Government is too big and too expensive so we have to cut". After laying-off 1,000s of workers, they outsourced services and hired more people on contract. The net result a smaller public service, but MORE people working to deliver the services at GREATER COST. All this in the name of EFFICIENCY!

Rant over.


----------



## ampdude

I'll never use florescent lighting in my home. And LED's have a LOOOOOOOOOOONG way to go before they put out the pleasing light an incandescent bulb does.

Don't think the energy companies aren't behind a lot of this "green" stuff. All that is happening is politicians are passing legislation so that the energy companies can charge you more to give you less.

This is never mentioned by anyone though. The horror if somebody in the press actually said such a thing! They would probably find themselves out of their job.


----------



## jtr1962

It's not about having energy companies charge you more for less. It's about not having to build new power plants and/or having rolling blackouts. Why does everyone assume that every law passed always has some hidden agenda behind it? If we don't try to reduce energy consumption by this and other means then we're basically screwed. We can't really build any new power plants. Nobody wants them in their neighborhood. Besides that, it seems any major infrastructure project these days requires 15 years of environmental reviews before it can even get off the ground. The only alternatives left are to reduce energy consumption or generate power locally (i.e. solar panels). Solar panels won't be viable in some cases, so that basically leaves conservation as the main alternative.

Also, lots of misinformation in this thread. CFLs granted aren't the best answer but most of the time they don't have very short life. And their light quality isn't up to par with sunlight, but it can be better than incandescent if you avoid the warm white shades which make everything look like crap (then again incandescent does that too). And they *don't* flicker. Flickering fluorescents when out with Martha Washington. Anything made in the last 10 or 15 years uses flicker-free electronic ballasts. Anyway, let's forgot CFLs. Linear tubes for now are really the best answer. They deal better with frequent starts, especially on a programmed rapid start ballast, they're 50% more efficient than CFLs, they have better light distribution (i.e. not a point source like a CFL or incandescent), the tubes last upwards of 20,000 hours, and they're available in a wide variety of color temperatures, particular full-spectrum 5000K. I don't see how "pleasing" and "incandescent" can go together, either. 5000K, high CRI fluorescent is about as good as it gets for artificial lighting, at least until something better using LEDs comes out.

Speaking of LEDs, by the time this ban kicks into effect there will be LEDs which have none of the drawbacks of CFLs. Let the incandescent bulbs go as a relic of the past. Does anyone still drive a Model T any more? So why continue to use 130 year old lighting technology which honestly was obsolete 25 year ago when triphosphor T8 tubes came out? It amazes me so many people actually still use incandescents. Even if they didn't have major efficiency and light quality drawbacks, the ~750 hour (best case) lifetime is totally ridiculous. Talk about waste and extra landfill, not to mention the annoyance of constantly replacing burned out bulbs.


----------



## brickbat

jtr1962 said:


> ...Does anyone still drive a Model T any more? ....



Actually, Yes. Some people do. And they enjoy it. However, most people stopped driving them. Not because the government banned them, but because they recognized that later model cars became a better value. 

People stopped using candles to light their homes. Again, not because the government banned them, but because better options became available.

Most people aren't as stupid as you seem to think. They will select new technology, when it is in their own best interest. And if people can't figure out which light bulb is their best choice, does our government really need to be in the business of telling them?

Sadly, however, too many citizens of this country tolerate a government that oversteps its constitutional authority on a daily basis...



jtr1962 said:


> ...Linear tubes for now are really the best answer. ....



Not always. Some people don't like their form factor, and they don't fit in fixtures they happen to like. It's not totally about efficiently producing lumens.



jtr1962 said:


> ...particular full-spectrum 5000K. I don't see how "pleasing" and "incandescent" can go together, either....It amazes me so many people actually still use incandescents....



Will you ever see that some people have different preferences than yourself?



jtr1962 said:


> ...by the time this ban kicks into effect there will be LEDs which have none of the drawbacks of CFLs....



Really? How do you know that they won't have an initial cost barrier? They won't be subject to shortened life at high temperatures? They won't be susceptible to mains surges? They won't have any limitations when used on dimmer circuits?


----------



## jtr1962

brickbat said:


> People stopped using candles to light their homes. Again, not because the government banned them, but because better options became available.


And we've had better options than incandescent for at least the last 25 years, and especially the last 10, yet even people who are aware of them haven't adopted them because all they see is the initial cost of replacement lamps, not total cost of ownership. This is because of the major failure of our educational institutions to teach basic mathematics and economics.



> Most people aren't as stupid as you seem to think. They will select new technology, when it is in their own best interest. And if people can't figure out which light bulb is their best choice, does our government really need to be in the business of telling them?


Really? Most people aren't even _aware_ of any options beyond incandescents. Well, some are but they'll think of the options as something for _other_ people, not themselves. A lot of those who are aware stubbornly refuse to try anything else based on old prejudices (i.e. fluorescent flickers, the color is harsh, etc.), or because all they see is the initial purchase price. It may not be always be the business of government to tell people what to do, but we should see that people are truthfully informed about alternatives, not subject to misinformation by companies who want to keep selling light bulbs. That's where I see the real value of this law here. It'll get people thinking about something most don't usually think about. I've already known a few people who voluntarily converted their lighting because the law made them think about CFLs enough to try them. Once they did, they got rid of all their incandescent bulbs in short order. Now they like not having to change lamps constantly. Some even enjoyed the whiter light when they tried several different color temps.

And I'll also add that when something people do negatively affects others, it becomes the business of government to regulate it if possible. That's the case here. If we go on business as usual then we'll either have rolling blackouts or need to build new power plants. That's a fact. Both those things will affect everyone. There are lots of other ways to cut power usage we should try also, but getting rid of an obsolete light source is a good start. And making people pay per kw-hr of power used is another thing we should do. Lots of people in apartments still just pay a flat rate. No incentive to conserve there at all.

If I drafted this law I would have one loophole for those still wanting to use incandescents. If they generate their power from some renewable source like solar, wind, geothermal then they would be entitled to an exemption since their usage patterns wouldn't affect the grid.



> Sadly, however, too many citizens of this country tolerate a government that oversteps its constitutional authority on a daily basis...


Well, there's other countries they could go to if they don't like it here. Let those who complain about our government restricting some types of light emitters go to North Korea or maybe Cuba, or even most countries in the EU. They'll see how few restrictions we really have here compared to most places. Sometimes government screws up and regulates things it shouldn't, such as the disastrous attempt at prohibition. Other times they fail to regulate things they should (the subprime loan crisis comes to mind). I happen to see a lot of sense in a law like this, even without dragging the infamous topic of global warming into it. Can't you just accept that sometimes people who are a lot smarter than you and I (I'm not referring to Congress here) can study something, and then recommend that certain legislative action be taken? Why are we as a people suddenly becoming more averse to accepting expert opinions instead of acting as if we're all experts on every subject here? It wasn't that way 30 or 40 years ago.



> Not always. Some people don't like their form factor, and they don't fit in fixtures they happen to like. It's not totally about efficiently producing lumens.


Ever think if maybe more people wanted to use linear fluorescents we would have found ways of tastefully integrating them into homes? It's a chicken or egg thing. Think how much it annoys me that almost all residential lighting is still centered around the archaic incandescent lamp. Why aren't my preferences being catered to?



> Will you ever see that some people have different preferences than yourself?


There's a little thing called millions of years of evolution under our ~5500K sun which caused this type of light to be optimal for our eyes. Anything much different causes eyestrain and other problems like SAD long term. Of course, optometrists need to make a living too, so let's all go on using incandescent bulbs. It's not even a question of preferences here. It's about using the type of light most suited to our eyes functioning as they should. 



> Really? How do you know that they won't have an initial cost barrier? They won't be subject to shortened life at high temperatures? They won't be susceptible to mains surges? They won't have any limitations when used on dimmer circuits?


There's no reason except poor design for LEDs to have any of these limitations, even now. They can work way better with dimmers than CFLs. If you have adequate heat sinking then heat isn't a problem. Most of the problems with CFLs can be traced to the race to bottom in terms of cost. You get what you pay for. I don't buy CFLs from dollar stores because they're probably garbage. It'll be the same with LEDs. Avoid the cheap garbage, they'll be fine. Even if a 10 watt LED designed to replace a 100 watt incandescent costs $20, the payback time is fairly short. After only 1000 hours of use, the electricity saved amounts to $18 (at $0.20 per kw-hr). The real problem with higher initial cost is properly educating the general public to calculate total cost of ownership. I'll gladly spend even $50 for a lamp if it saves me 10 times that over its life. And no way will LEDs be $50. I think they'll probably start at $15 to $25, as CFLs did, but quickly come down to the $5 to $10 area, perhaps even under $3. The electronics for LEDs are inherently much simpler than for CFLs. I'll go out on a limb and say they'll probably be cheaper than incandescent bulbs are in ten years. We'll all look back on this thread wondering what all the fuss about the ban was. They banned lead in paint and gasoline, they banned PCBs in transformers, they banned asbestoes. Did anyone really miss any of these things? I'll certainly keep whatever incandescents I have for posterity's sake, but I don't ever see myself actually using them again as a light source.


----------



## jtr1962

Why light bulbs are accelerating global warming and mercury contamination

Interesting read. The author obviously isn't a fan of incandescents but he doesn't think CFLs are a good answer, either.


----------



## 2xTrinity

jtr1962 said:


> Why light bulbs are accelerating global warming and mercury contamination
> 
> Interesting read. The author obviously isn't a fan of incandescents but he doesn't think CFLs are a good answer, either.


A lot of his points are inaccurate (ie that fluorecsent have problem with flickering) and he also happens to be selling poor quality LED bulbs (read: no lumens specs, no color temp specs, no beam angle specs, no emitter types specified, no or too little apparent heatsinking...) There will certainly come a time, probably in not too many years, when all advantages of fluorescent are eradiacated by LEDs, but what looks like _previous_ generation emitters are not up to that task.

If for example, dual-phosphor next-gen high-power emitters came out for pennies each due to economy of scale, linear "strips" of next-gen LEDs coudl be superior to linear fluorescent. I certainly do hope that with LEDs we start to see _better fixtures_ and not just kludgy drop-in replacements for existing fixtures.

Either way, I agree with the that CFLs are not a good choice in many applications. IMO linear tubes are a better solution even in terms of waste disposal. They have longer life, meaning fewer tubes and less mercury (modern tubes have only a few mg, just like CFLs) Also, with linear tubes, the ballasts aren't thrown away every time, they will generate significantly less waste.

Ultimately though, I believe the scare involving mercury in CFLs is exaggerated. I actually ended up breaking one on a hard surface. The mercury content was actaully two small grains of amalgam, not liquid droplets. Most of the CFLs I've seen appear to use a mercury amalgam (the reason for the "long warmup time" problem -- this is done to make the lamp operable at higher temps -- a drawback of making retrofit rather than using dedicated fixtures). Metallic mercury itself isn't what is dangerous, the vapor, and organic compounds of mercury, are. If mercury is stored in an amalgam however when a lamp is broken, none of it will evaporate -- and the fragments can be fairly easily lifted.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe

We use CFL in almost every fixture in the HOUSE.

Tube fixtures are in the shop, pump house and garage.

There ain't no way tubes are coming indoors, as they are UGLY to look at.

I get very good life out of indoor CFL. It's the ones in outdoor fixtures that don't last all that great, but still beat incandescent in the same fixtures.

I haven't found a CFL for candelabra base fixtures. My FINE Hunter ceiling fan uses them as well as the main light in the kitchen. We just don't USE the main kitchen light that much and I'm only in my room with the light on maybe an hour a day TOPS!

For government to MAKE me do any of this would hack me off BADLY!


----------



## brickbat

jtr1962 said:


> Why light bulbs are accelerating global warming and mercury contamination
> 
> Interesting read....



Hardly.

If it didn't have the links leading to "buy now" $100 LED lamps, it might have had a tiny shred of credibility. As is, it has none.


----------



## jtr1962

brickbat said:


> Hardly.
> 
> If it didn't have the links leading to "buy now" $100 LED lamps, it might have had a tiny shred of credibility. As is, it has none.


Sure, there is some inaccurate and misleading information in there no doubt as 2xTrinity pointed out. Then again similar tactics are used by companies selling incandescent lamps or disposable batteries. We can see through all that here. Unfortunately, the average consumer is too often taken in by such marketing spin.

P.S. The lamps he's selling are overpriced and underperforming. I question whether his 10 watt lamp can replace a 100 watt incandescent. Perhaps in a focused light application, but not in total lumens. I'm sure 10:1 or better will happen soon, but that's not the case here.


----------



## LuxLuthor

jtr1962 said:


> And you don't think these problems will be solved in four years time? Four years is an eternity in the LED industry. Think what we had four years ago and what we have now.
> 
> ...
> 
> BTW, my guess is LED technology will progress so fast that in four or five years time there won't be any incandescents on store shelves, ban or not. We're already there efficiency-wise. Color is not perfect, but acceptable for general lighting (indeed much nicer than incandescents and most fluorescents).



From page one, and now almost 4 years later, I can say that LED solutions are not available for the general household application. Many repercussions have come from this law, including GE closing all their lighting plants and sending manufacturing of new lighting to China.

Someone sent me a PM today thanking me for this topic which I had long forgotten about. It is interesting to read it in today's reality, even though I believe some posts may now go against the current guidelines of CPF discussions. If the thread is closed, it is a nice slice of CPF posterity. My passion was dripping off the walls back then. LOL!


----------



## Colonel Sanders

And 4 years from now CFLs and LEDs will still suck for many household applications. There's my prediction for those who like 'em. 

I like CFLs for lamp fixtures and that's about it. The right CFL in behind the right lamp shade makes for pleasing enough light. But for any bulb I have to actually see, I still like incans better. Oh, and dimmable CFLs are a JOKE! I tried every brand I could get my hand on in R40 and PAR38 and they all look like crap when you dim them....not that they look great when not dimmed. CFL candles for sconce and chandeliers? Paleez...horrible looking and can't be dimmed. I mean, just yuck.

I am all for energy efficiency so long as it's not crammed down my throat by Big Brother. When building my dream home I invested in spray foam insulation throughout and a computer controlled low voltage lighting system (gives me total control over most everything electrical in my house...not limited to just lighting.) I also used high SEER rated heat pumps and highly efficient heat pump water heaters. I did these things not because I was made to do so but because it made sense.

Lux, this is still a great and relevant thread so... :bump:


----------



## DM51

LuxLuthor said:


> From page one, and now almost 4 years later, I can say that LED solutions are not available for the general household application


... and not much sign of anything acceptable appearing anytime soon, either.

Fortunately, I have still been able to find good incan bulbs. I found another source for 100W bulbs yesterday and bought all the 600pcs they had, to add to my existing stockpile. They cost me $336 incl. shipping, which works out at 56 cents each.


----------



## alpg88

In December 2007, many of these state efforts became moot when the federal government enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires all general-purpose light bulbs that produce 310–2600 lumens of light[31] be 30% more energy efficient (similar to current halogen lamps) than then-current incandescent bulbs by 2012 to 2014. The efficiency standards will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.
Light bulbs outside of this range are exempt from the restrictions. Also exempt are several classes of specialty lights, including appliance lamps, rough service bulbs, 3-way, colored lamps, stage lighting and plant lights.
By 2020, a second tier of restrictions would become effective, which requires all general-purpose bulbs to produce at least 45 lumens per watt (similar to current CFLs). Exemptions from the Act include reflector flood, 3-way, candelabra, colored, and other specialty bulbs.[32]
In 2011 Rep. Joe Barton of Texas and 14 other Republicans joined to introduce the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act or BULB Act (H.R. 91), which would have repealed Subtitle B of Title III of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Barton was opposed to regulation, while Rep. Michael Burgess pointed to jobs purportedly lost to China and voiced a fear of mercury problems resulting from CFL use.[33] On July 12, 2011, H.R. 2417 failed to pass by the required two-thirds majority in the U.S. House.[34]


----------



## deadrx7conv

Who needs an LED solution? If you're unhappy with the CFL's, then grab the halogen bulbs. 

Wallyworld had 43w(60w equivalent), 53w(75w equivalent), and 72w(100w equivalent), in both frosted and clear glass A19 shells. There were also some 60w and 75w halogens too. Not a bad range of higher lumen halogens. They are out there if you look. We should've dumped standard incan bulbs when we dumped standard headlights. Anyone remember upgrading their car to halogens from standard tungsten non-halogens? 

RIP incan. Hello halogen. I wonder if they could lower the wattage a little more with krypton/xenon.... Toss in a nanocarbon filaments and 'efficient' incans are here to stay. 

How about some HIR home lighting?


----------



## jtr1962

Colonel Sanders said:


> CFL candles for sconce and chandeliers? Paleez...horrible looking and can't be dimmed. I mean, just yuck.


CFLs admittedly stink for this particular application but with a little ingeniuity LEDs work fine. I just modded one of our chandeliers with great results. It's even dimmable. About twice the light of the original bulbs (which seemed to burn out monthly despite hardly being used), 16 watts versus 150 watts, and in my opinion a lot better color. I just posted a thread on it in the fixed lighting section. Two more chandeliers to go then the house is incan-free (everything else has been CFLs or linear tubes for the last 2+ decades). Admittedly, one chandelier may need to wait a bit until more efficient LEDs come out due to thermal issues (i.e. the candles are in glass "hurricane lamp" type enclosures).

Oh, and there are plenty of LED lighting solutions now which work just fine, but you mostly need to look at commercial lighting or DIY. Cree has a nice selection of downlights. There are also a good number of standard A19 LED screw-base bulbs which work just fine, at least according to those here who have tried them. Still nothing viable to replace 100+ watt lamps, so my prediction didn't come true 100%, but most of it did. Prognosticating about future tech is pretty much hit or miss anyway.

CFL will probably be a dead technology in about 5 years (my latest prediction). Once we grow LEDs on silicon the price will come down tenfold. Mercury in CFLs will be the final nail in their coffin.

OLEDs are just starting to come into their own. It should be an interesting next 5 years. Maybe we'll finally get that holy grail of lighting which has been talked about for decades-luminous ceilings.

P.S. I'm no longer as passionate about this stuff as I once was.


----------



## NeonLights

A few weeks ago I picked up a couple of 12-packs of standard 100 watt incan bulbs at a local Meijer store. They had them for $3 or $4 a package IIRC. Thought they might be good to have around if they aren't available in the future. We have a mix of about half and half incan and curly CFL bulbs in our house. About half of the rooms in our house have dimmer switches on them, and the regular CFL's don't play nice with dimmers, and in the applications where we do use CFL's, they blow out on a regular basis, we probably average about a year or so per CFL bulb (I usually write the date on them they were installed), not lasting nearly as long as they are supposed to.


----------



## ProstheticHead

The only niche I haven't been able to completely rid the house of incans for is old dimmer fixtures which worn't work with LEDs or CFLs. I infinity prefer good LEDs over CFLs. The warmup time, colour tone and occasional flicker of CFLs don't meet with my tastes & I've recently found that Philips CFLs I put in are blowing in well under a year (WORSE than incans). It could be that I've been unlucky or that they are intentionally rigging them to blow early as they are now becoming near universal so they can sell replacements (if they really lasted 10 years they would prob go out of business at the prices they charge). Interestingly I have a few very old CFLs that have bee in regular use for near 10 years now and still work as well as they ever did (ok, slow startup, very yellow light but still) - My speculation is that when I bought theses they were unusual and expensive, longevity was the main marketing feature unlike the situation now.


----------



## LuxLuthor

DM51 said:


> ... and not much sign of anything acceptable appearing anytime soon, either.
> 
> Fortunately, I have still been able to find good incan bulbs. I found another source for 100W bulbs yesterday and bought all the 600pcs they had, to add to my existing stockpile. They cost me $336 incl. shipping, which works out at 56 cents each.


 
Whoa, that is a stockpile. Congratulations!



alpg88 said:


> In December 2007, many of these state efforts became moot when the federal government enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,



What didn't become moot is the loss of USA jobs and shutdown of factories, most notably GE, who in turn opened new factories to make CFL's in China. Many of us continue to have much simpler ways of achieving energy independence and security by developing our own energy resources--clean and conventional, including completing the Canadian pipeline that otherwise will be sent to China and burned with much higher environmental contamination since they are not obligated to destroy their economy complying with Kyoto and European standards.



jtr1962 said:


> CFLs admittedly stink for this particular application but with a little ingeniuity LEDs work fine. I just modded one of our chandeliers with great results. It's even dimmable. About twice the light of the original bulbs (which seemed to burn out monthly despite hardly being used), 16 watts versus 150 watts, and in my opinion a lot better color. I just posted a thread on it in the fixed lighting section. Two more chandeliers to go then the house is incan-free (everything else has been CFLs or linear tubes for the last 2+ decades). Admittedly, one chandelier may need to wait a bit until more efficient LEDs come out due to thermal issues (i.e. the candles are in glass "hurricane lamp" type enclosures).
> 
> Oh, and there are plenty of LED lighting solutions now which work just fine, but you mostly need to look at commercial lighting or DIY. Cree has a nice selection of downlights. There are also a good number of standard A19 LED screw-base bulbs which work just fine, at least according to those here who have tried them. Still nothing viable to replace 100+ watt lamps, so my prediction didn't come true 100%, but most of it did. Prognosticating about future tech is pretty much hit or miss anyway.
> 
> CFL will probably be a dead technology in about 5 years (my latest prediction). Once we grow LEDs on silicon the price will come down tenfold. Mercury in CFLs will be the final nail in their coffin.
> 
> OLEDs are just starting to come into their own. It should be an interesting next 5 years. Maybe we'll finally get that holy grail of lighting which has been talked about for decades-luminous ceilings.
> 
> P.S. I'm no longer as passionate about this stuff as I once was.



I'm not passionate about it either because this stupid law was one of many government run manipulations that have largely destroyed this once great nation. I'm just glad I don't have kids in the USA, they are already starting to get hosed in this economy and massive debt burdens. Light bulbs will be the least of their problems.



ProstheticHead said:


> The only niche I haven't been able to completely rid the house of incans for is old dimmer fixtures which worn't work with LEDs or CFLs. I infinity prefer good LEDs over CFLs. The warmup time, colour tone and occasional flicker of CFLs don't meet with my tastes & I've recently found that Philips CFLs I put in are blowing in well under a year (WORSE than incans). It could be that I've been unlucky or that they are intentionally rigging them to blow early as they are now becoming near universal so they can sell replacements (if they really lasted 10 years they would prob go out of business at the prices they charge). Interestingly I have a few very old CFLs that have bee in regular use for near 10 years now and still work as well as they ever did (ok, slow startup, very yellow light but still) - My speculation is that when I bought theses they were unusual and expensive, longevity was the main marketing feature unlike the situation now.



How the market should work is that if you prefer the light characteristics, pricing, etc. you should be able to choose your LED's or whatever you want. My objection was the government-knows-best philosophy which has never been true about anything. Government is destroying everything it touches.

Regarding the ongoing whining about the short lives of incan bulbs, that's only because you were not smart enough to research and purchase 10,000 or 20,000 hour incan bulbs which are still available in all wattages, and much much cheaper prices once you factor in all the costs. In any case there are many of us that prefer the output and performance of incands...which is why you see many of us stockpiling them. I have enough incand bulbs in 40, 60, 75, 100W, and 250W to last at least 40 years, used normally every day, and I know many many others who have done the same, thanks to these ignorant government laws trying to dominate people's choices.


----------



## milkyspit

Hey Lux, :wave: nice to see you! Been lurking in this thread for a while. My personal case: I have a preference for LED lighting (big surprise there!) based on energy efficiency (and its effect on my monthly electric bill) though I also like the light generate by a good incan bulb, and suspect there may be certain health benefits to the light produced by those. What I dislike with a passion are fluorescents of all types, which I find to generate relatively poor quality illumination and come with an unacceptable risk of mercury contamination. Mercury is, if memory serves, considered the second-most toxic substance to the human body, and once in the body, quickly migrates to the central nervous system, where it lodges for decades: half-life for elimination of mercury from the human body is roughly 15 years. I have children and in our home, as in many others, sh*t happens, things break, etc. For me, mercury has no business invading our home any more than unavoidably necessary.

Quick question: I have a stockpile of incan household bulbs that got displaced by various LED replacements... the incan bulbs no longer have their native packaging... suggestions on how I might store them to avoid breakage and not fill gobs of storage space? I'd like to hold onto them but want to store them in a user-friendly manner.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Nice to see you also! Hmmmm....well the problem with the bulb storage is their fragile nature. I don't see any non-bulky way to safely store them other than individual bubble wrap, and then put in a larger box with p-nuts. I have to agree since their inception that the CFL's with mercury were always a bad design, despite their much higher prices. I think they should have kept incands, and waited until LED's were ready for prime time and this changeover would have made more sense. I know the halgoen inside the incan bulbs look nice and are more efficient, but they are also way too expensive relative to buying 20,000 hour incands, even when you include the cost of the extra energy expense.


----------



## EricB

The best LED bulbs to come out recently are the *Ecosmart A19 series* I discovered at Home Depot last month. http://tinyurl.com/cn4cq9q It has the typical heat sink base, but the actual "bulb" (made of thick translucent white plastic is shaped like a flattened version of the A19 bulb. They come in both daylight white and warm white. 

I got a daylight for the range hood (the CFL I had there for years finally burned out). I had been looking for a daylight LED for that, but couldn't find anything bright enough, and with good sideways emission that was not ridiculously expensive. I wondered how this would do (with such little sideways surface, which in the horizontal position becomes downward), and it's perfect!
I want to get another one for the kitchen ceiling, and then will get warm whites to replace the other CFL's when they go out, and in the ceiling fan lights, where I currently have dimmer glass bulb Ecolite LED's.

Previously, I had that bright Philips that came out (the three partitioned bulb), $40, for a half off deal at Home Depot. I thought it was a bit ugly, and is even yellow when off (the phosphor that makes it glow warm white) but it was the best thing out at the time. Now these Ecosmarts are just as good, and look much better. I'm also seeing the floodlight version in places as well.

The warm whites look just like incandescents, and the daylights look just like fluorescents; and in both cases, just as bright!

In fact, LED's are really taking off in stores; like the Duane Reade I see that recently remodeled and uses the daylight strips on nearly all of its dry good shelves (cosmetics, etc, which had no lighting before), and they've really taken over vending machines and store refrigerators, jewelry windows, etc. And the MR16 replacements for spotlighting.

And for the holidays, the GE color Effects (or similar knockoffs) are appearing in a lot of places. (We were supposed to get them this year, but one, have to cool it with the money. They are like $50 or more. Plus, the landlord thinks our outdoor decorations are running up the light bill, though my handful of strings are all LED's, though the downstairs neighbor had incandescents on the star railing and around the door. Though that still should not push the bill up that much. So we have a backup of strings, that won't all be used, and don't really need another one now. Just as long as I finally have my programmable RGB's, which I got up and running last year).


----------



## OneBigDay

I have not been following this topic in general but this information may be of interest to those who are. It looks like congress overturned the ban.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct

Be sure to check out the GE 62180/62181. Here is a link to the bulb. I saw this in person at Photon Fest, and it is a real winner.


----------



## Kestrel

OneBigDay said:


> It looks like congress overturned the ban.


It doesn't look like it to me:


> The spending bill doesn’t actually amend the 2007 law, but does prohibit the administration from spending any money to carry out the light bulb standards — which amounts to at least a temporary reprieve.


Stated another way:


> Congress approved the standards in 2007 [...] which remain in effect even if they will not be enforced.


----------



## Sub_Umbra

To quote James Wesley Rawles:

_"...It would have been a shame to see incandescents banned. *BTW, reporters missed mentioning that enforcement of the proposed ban would have constituted racial profiling of people from South America. (Many of whom are of Incan descent.)..."*_​


----------



## LightWalker

By 2014, the lightbulb as we've known it for more than a century will be turned off

http://www.bing.com/fordelectric/tech-and-gadgets/article-a-bright-new-world.aspx


----------



## deadrx7conv

http://business.financialpost.com/2...ends-right-to-buy-less-efficient-light-bulbs/


----------



## brickbat

DM51 said:


> ...bought all the 600pcs they had, to add to my existing stockpile. They cost me $336 incl. shipping, which works out at 56 cents each.



Let's see... 600 x 100W x 750 hours = 45,000 kWh. Around here, electricity sells for about $.11 per kWh. So your $336 worth of lamps will use about $4,950 worth of electricity over their life... (I knew there was a reason I tolerate CFLs)


----------



## El Caballo

NeonLights said:


> and in the applications where we do use CFL's, they blow out on a regular basis, we probably average about a year or so per CFL bulb (I usually write the date on them they were installed), not lasting nearly as long as they are supposed to.



That's the Big Lie of CFLs. They don't last nearly as long as they're supposed to.

Sure, if you leave them on continually they'll last just about forever, but I don't leave lights on all the time in my house. 

I use incandescents in my bathroom because what with all the turning on and off, incandescents last me about as long as CFLs. Plus they don't take minutes to warm up, by which time I'm done peeing anyway.

I just lost another CFL this week. If they lasted as long as their claims, I wouldn't have had to replace a single one since I moved into my current place...yet I've gone through four already. :ironic:

And then there's the "efficiency" canard...it's cold where I live! Therefore, "waste heat" isn't wasted...it's heating my house!

Do I use CFLs in most places? Yes. But incandescents are clearly superior in some applications. Despite that, a clueless bureaucracy has decided that I need to generate a bunch of extra toxic waste purchased from overseas.


----------



## LuxLuthor

brickbat said:


> Let's see... 600 x 100W x 750 hours = 45,000 kWh. Around here, electricity sells for about $.11 per kWh. So your $336 worth of lamps will use about $4,950 worth of electricity over their life... (I knew there was a reason I tolerate CFLs)




I appreciate your post and approach to this issue, and IMHO, this is one of the ways a new technology should be presented, then let people make a choice on what works best for them. 

However, if you are going to use such an analysis, you must include the differences in cost justifying your tolerance of CFL's. With respect, there are errors and omissions in your approach. I am not addressing the separate LED issue, since you seem to only enjoy abusing yourself with CFL's. 
1) I mainly have stocked up with incand bulbs that have 10,000 to 20,000 hour life, not 750 hours. 

2) I have about 175 bulbs throughout my home, including ceiling fixtures, lamps, outside lighting, etc. (not including Christmas lights) 

3) Of those 175 bulbs, 2 are 500W Halogen standup lamps, 8 others are >100W, 50 are 100W, 75 are 75W, & 35 are < 75W. 25-30 are on dimmers. About 50 are built-in recessed ceiling fixtures with covers, and the 100W CFL bulbs will not fit in the existing space.

4) I turn my lights on when they are being used, and off when not. The most bulbs I have on at one time is about 40, but likely averages about 15 bulbs. I would estimate that I use lights about 8 hours a day, and would settle on the 75W being the average of all the sizes. So that works out to 15 bulbs x 8 hours x 75W = 9,000 or 9 kWh per day, which is 3,285 kWh per year. 

5) *My CT Light & Power rate is 9.4 cents per kWh. 3,285 kWh x $0.094 = $308.79 to run my incand bulbs per year or about $26 per month.* 

6) Out of curiosity, I looked up my CL&P payments over the last 4 years in Quicken, and they average $4,000 per year or $333 per month. Incand lighting is about 8% of my electric bill, which makes it nearly irrelevant.

7) I greatly prefer the color and CRI of incand lighting. It is a more calming, warm color that easier on my eyes--especially when reading. There are other intangibles such as dimmers, reliability, familiarity, and safety that are hard to quantify benefits I get from using incands.

​If you are still with me, let's now say I drink the Kool-Aid and decide to make a gesture to appease my faux energy gluttony-related guilt imposed by The Liberal Intelligentsia, by using CFL bulbs. Let's look at the CFL analysis.

1) Depending on which CFL, the cost per 25W (100W equivalent) CFL bulb is between $3.50 to $12.50 depending on quality. They are promoted to last 8,000+ hours, but from what I have read if they are turned on and off like people normally use their incand bulbs throughout the day/evening/night, the lifetime is dramatically shortened--sometimes to 4-6 months. Let's pick the lower end of the price range, and hope for the best with longevity. Let's say I can replace 100 of my 75-100W bulbs at a $3.00 higher unit cost than the 50 cent incands. *That is $300 out of pocket *if you buy the crappy low end GE CFL's now made in China....let's hope they last a year turning on and off normally.

2) With CFL's I use 1/3 the wattage on the average as my typical 75W average incand use, so in return for shelling out the $300 to buy new CFL's, *I would save $222 per year or a $78 loss in year one of my $300 investment.* If the CFL's last longer than a year, then I start to see energy savings on my $300 investment....but read the reviews on the low end GE type bulbs. Including my own experience with 6-8 of those CFL bulbs, they lasted less than a year.

3) I now have a less pleasing light color and resolution index.

4) I now have the mercury toxicity/disposal risk to my family, home, and the environment.

5) I cannot use my dimmers. I like dimmers to set the moods, or reduce lighting depending on what I am doing.

6) If I had not stocked up on 100W incand bulbs that fit my 50+ fixed ceiling light receptacles, I would be stuck with either no light coming from those spots, or the very significant new construction cost of removal/repair of plaster & wood frame ceiling installations, and additional cost of new receptacles that would fit CFL bulbs.

7) [off-topic rant deleted - Kestrel] 

While I do not object to encouraging the conservation side of energy management, it is ignorant to simultaneously block increasing the supply side of the equation. Increasing the supply of energy is blocked as a viable solution because cheaper energy destroys their scheme to punitively force developed nations into being better stewards of the environment. The main fallacy in their logic is ignoring China, India, and other exempt developing nations, and facing the reality that the only solution to environmental conservation is reducing world (human) population growth.​


----------



## brickbat

I'm not entering into a debate as to whether CFLs are a good choice for you. You've laid out your reasoning, and that's fine. My post was simply to illustrate that the supposed $0.56 cost of an incandescent lamp is dwarfed by the cost of the energy it consumes. I didn't make any errors in my simple calculation. 

I can think for myself and have found that in my house there are lamp sockets where a CFL makes sense, and those where it doesn't. Like you, I don't like being told what lamp I'd have to use. (see my post #113) But, I also will not throw out the baby with the bathwater - CFLs have undeniable advantages in some applications, and I'm not opposed to using them there.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Kestrel, thanks for the edit. I did "wander off the reservation" a bit, sorry. 



brickbat said:


> I'm not entering into a debate as to whether CFLs are a good choice for you. You've laid out your reasoning, and that's fine. My post was simply to illustrate that the supposed $0.56 cost of an incandescent lamp is dwarfed by the cost of the energy it consumes. I didn't make any errors in my simple calculation.
> 
> I can think for myself and have found that in my house there are lamp sockets where a CFL makes sense, and those where it doesn't. Like you, I don't like being told what lamp I'd have to use. (see my post #113) But, I also will not throw out the baby with the bathwater - CFLs have undeniable advantages in some applications, and I'm not opposed to using them there.



BB, I'm not really saying what people should choose, as you said you can think for yourself and have places where you believe a CFL makes sense. 

My problem is a) that my choice was taken away from me without sufficient justification, and b) when you do the calculation you did (which itself used accurate math), to make a point that incands cost more money (than CFL's) over their life relative to the price--that is what I mean by an error/omission. Here's why I challenge that method, trying to compare apples to apples.

Let's say I buy 600 CFL's at $3.50 each which is $2,100. They are supposed to last 8,000 hours using 26 watts. So using your 11 cents per kWh rate, that would work out to:

600 x 26W x 8,000 = 124,800 kWh x $0.11 = $13,728 *So your $2100 worth of CFL's will use $13,728 worth of electricity over their life.* I knew there was another reason why I enjoyed incands even more. 

Obviously, my tongue-in-cheek point is that you need to structure your energy savings benefit of CFL's a different way. I know they use 1/4 to 1/3 the energy.


----------



## jtr1962

LuxLuthor said:


> While I do not object to encouraging the conservation side of energy management, it is ignorant to simultaneously block increasing the supply side of the equation. Increasing the supply of energy is blocked as a viable solution because cheaper energy destroys their scheme to punitively force developed nations into being better stewards of the environment. The main fallacy in their logic is ignoring China, India, and other exempt developing nations, and facing the reality that the only solution to environmental conservation is reducing world (human) population growth.


Agreed somewhat with the last sentence here, although _how we live_ greatly influences the ultimate carrying capacity of this planet. If we recycle literally everything, grow food locally, perhaps via vertical farming, live in fairly dense cities, and generate 100% of power via fusion/fission/solar/geothermal/wind/tidal, then the planet might survive intact with 100 billion humans. On the flip side, if everyone lived as we do in the USA, then I'd put that number at well under 1 billion. So bottom line-it all depends.

Second, about the only viable answer at present to increasing the supply side is nuclear fission, but there would be major issues trying to build new fission plants anywhere except maybe the deserts in the southwest. Assuming you could overcome that hurdle, you'll have to string up thousands of miles of megavolt lines to bring that power where it will be used.

The long term answers on the supply side are either fusion (but when?) or solar. Right now neither is viable. We haven't yet figured out how to make fusion work. As for solar, right now solar panels are still too costly and inefficient to really become mainstream, although I personally think they will within 20 years. The second hurdle with solar is inexpensive bulk energy storage because you need power 24/7, but only generate it during daytime. Again, I feel this problem will be solved, probably fairly soon.

No other answers are viable on the supply side. Anything which burns (coal, oil, natural gas) is out in the long run regardless because the supply is by definition limited. And then there are the negative externalities of using fossil fuel, including the damage incurred when mining, the medical costs of air/water pollution, the quality of life issues living with polluted air. China and India are already starting to feel the negative long-term effects of their rapid, fossil-fuel based expansions.

Running down the list of other possible ways to increase the supply side, you find pretty much the same things. Hydroelectricity is great but we've already pretty much dammed up all the major rivers and tapped that resource as much as we could. Wind is fine in niche uses but faces the same storage issues as solar. Even if it didn't, it couldn't hope to meet more than a fraction of our energy needs. Geothermal/tidal are fine where they work, but again are niche energy sources.

Bottom line-there are no viable, short-term means to increase the energy supply by enough to make any difference in the price, or the need to start conserving. And in the short term, the population is growing faster than the energy supply regardless. The only question then is what are best, least intrusive ways to get the population to conserve energy in the short term (say 10-20 years) until new sources will hopefully come online? I don't really have an answer to that. As you've already shown, light bulbs are a pretty small fraction of the power we use, and I'll readily admit CFLs were never a great answer. Maybe we should have waited until LEDs were more reasonably-priced and efficient for the new laws to take effect. That might have meant postponing them by only 2 or 3 years.

Assuming we have everyone using energy efficient lighting, all we've done is postpone the need to find new sources of energy. And that's really the point here-to buy us a little more time while we figure out the best way to move forwards. Long term there are two choices as I see it. Either do as you mentioned, somehow reduce the population, or drastically change how we live. The latter doesn't necessarily mean for the worse. I can easily envision dense cities as great places to live, with vertical farming, large park areas, clean mass transit, absolutely no cars, a lot more people walking/cycling to get around, etc. Heck, if we build high enough everyone can even have a large amount of their own "space". And if we recycle enough, the only major input into the system you'll need is energy. The problem is selling this vision to people who simply can't imagine any other way to live than the way they're living now. Again, I have no good answers to this. The old saying necessity is the mother of invention rings true. My guess is we'll need a major crisis or two before people will finally realize the futility of trying to continue the status quo, and buy into this. Oh, and in the scheme of things, probably what light bulb people use is going to be the least of our issues.

Minor point Lux regarding using economics to justify either continued incan use or switching over to alternatives-a lot of us pay way more than the 9.4 cents per kW-hr you do. With delivery charges which nearly equal what you pay in total, we're paying about 26 or 27 cents. I don't know how the national average of 10 or 11 cents is arrived at because this seems suspiciously low to me with people in the large cities on both coasts typically paying 2 to 3 times that. In any case, in a place like NYC even if CFLs last no longer than incans they easily pay for themselves, even at $8 a pop. Light quality? I don't like warm white CFLs but then again I find them no worse than incans, which I also dislike. The neutral and cool white CFLs seem to be less offensive, perhaps because the red deficiency is more expected in a spectrum with higher CCT. We're mostly using linear tubes here anyway, have been for the last 25 years. They offer a much better selection of CCT and CRI options, and in my opinion better color overall than CFLs. They also are about 1.5 times more efficient, last 3 to 4 times as long, and you don't toss the ballast in the trash when the tubes die. Yes, you need to replace the fixture, but it's not like any of the fixtures we replaced were heirlooms. We'll probably need to accept the same reality with LEDs-namely they may work in sockets, but they'll work MUCH better in a fixture designed for them. Now I'm finally starting to see lots of commercial LED lighting. Hopefully this will trickle down into reasonable LED fixtures for residential use where the LEDs might last as long as the structure they're in.


----------



## LuxLuthor

JTR, really wonderful and thoughtful reply. I mean that sincerely, and usually learn useful information from your posts. I have one fundamental disagreement with your thoughts, but otherwise I would only be nibbling around the edges.

Nibble #1) I don't think you can extrapolate much for the rest of the country/world by looking at unique, high density population centers like NYC (including the burroughs)--especially with costs of energy, housing, food, utilities, environmental, crime, etc. People who do not grow up in that environment find it claustrophobic, extremely restrictive with laws, taxes, fees, and other consequences of jamming 8-9 million huddled masses yearning to breathe free into a postage stamp plot of land (210 square miles useable). Be that as it may, and admitting to having lived at 24th & 2nd for 8 years, I love many things about The City, but never enjoyed the government using oppressive fees, taxes, and laws to dominate and manipulate people's behavior to such a degree. I do not believe it would be a viable solution for most people used to more open spaces and freedoms, unless as you say there is some catastrophic emergency leaving no other choice. Never mind my biggest fear that it is too tempting of a target for a WMD that would make 9/11 look like a picnic.

Nibble #2) I agree with your assessment of (viable) long term energy supply limitations, but don't see other limited resources holding up to the kind of increases in population you suggested. Natural resources, minerals, water, food, land will become larger concerns than energy supply.

My only fundamental disagreement is believing we should *increase use of nuclear & hydrocarbon energy sources (particularly natural gas)* for much longer (30-50 years), and make it cheaper, and more available to help bolster and strengthen our private economy and reduce our debt and foreign oil dependency. Otherwise, the USA is on a fast track towards world irrelevancy, leaving us to wistfully commiserate with our British mates over a pint at the pub of glorious years gone by. 

To follow this course, one is required to seriously question and mostly dismiss the man-made GW assertions, which is a topic for the Underground--but I have no interest in entering that Lion's Den. Suffice it to say that very few man-made GW proponents have allowed themselves to review the substantial body of legitimate criticism with an open mind.

If this increase and cheaper energy supply could be used as a bridge to save money, reduce debt, repair infrastructures, and help build up our country's surpluses, then I could see embarking on serious government funded projects (akin to The Manhattan Project) to develop specific fusion and solar energy sources that are actually viable. Instead what you are seeing is an environmental agenda-driven restriction of increasing known workable supply side options, and increasing imposition of energy conservation as the most important approach. There are many misguided bipartisan government attempts to force development of green energy ideas where Solyndra is but the latest example of lead balloon designs. I fundamentally disagree with the general approach, and intolerance of objective/practical thinking about our current energy management and consequences. Instead most people feel righteous by using a CFL bulb, or putting their soda bottles in the recycle bin.


----------



## Stillphoto

Listened to this last week and thought of this thread. An interview NPR did with the merchandising VP of electrical for Home Depot, who sells around 1/3 of the bulbs in the US. http://n.pr/sauENR


----------



## jtr1962

LuxLuthor said:


> JTR, really wonderful and thoughtful reply. I mean that sincerely, and usually learn useful information from your posts. I have one fundamental disagreement with your thoughts, but otherwise I would only be nibbling around the edges.


Thank you for the compliments, and although we sometimes disagree, I do in fact learn a lot from your posts, and the posts of others who hold different views.



> Nibble #1) I don't think you can extrapolate much for the rest of the country/world by looking at unique, high density population centers like NYC (including the burroughs)--especially with costs of energy, housing, food, utilities, environmental, crime, etc. People who do not grow up in that environment find it claustrophobic, extremely restrictive with laws, taxes, fees, and other consequences of jamming 8-9 million huddled masses yearning to breathe free into a postage stamp plot of land (210 square miles useable). Be that as it may, and admitting to having lived at 24th & 2nd for 8 years, I love many things about The City, but never enjoyed the government using oppressive fees, taxes, and laws to dominate and manipulate people's behavior to such a degree. I do not believe it would be a viable solution for most people used to more open spaces and freedoms, unless as you say there is some catastrophic emergency leaving no other choice. Never mind my biggest fear that it is too tempting of a target for a WMD that would make 9/11 look like a picnic.


Let's not forget that NYC is composed of 5 boroughs, and the outer boroughs are still dense enough to allow less energy intensive living, but not as oppressively dense as Manhattan. Also, I'm envisioning dense cities more as they _could be_, rather than as they are. If someone asked me what the one single thing which I feel negatively affects the quality of life in NYC the most is, I would answer without hesitation motor vehicles. We devote far too much valuable street space to a mode which at best provides less than 20% of passenger miles. Moreover, automobiles and the various constructs needed for them (i.e. traffic signals, highways, etc.) negatively impact pedestrians and cyclists to a huge extent in terms of both travel times and carnage. In short, other than emergency and delivery vehicles, large motorized vehicles are largely incompatible with dense cities, and frequently are far slower than mass transit or cycling. Indeed, in Manhattan you can often walk faster than you can drive. If we come to that realization, start planning cities by prioritizing mass transit, walking, and cycling, then dense areas needn't feel as oppressive. It's really all about managing space properly when you have a limited amount of it. You don't buy a grand piano if you have a 200 square foot apartment. And you don't devote acres of space in a dense city for roads or parking when you can instead use 1/10th of that space for transport if people bike or walk or take mass transit.

Great example was today. I was down by Rockefeller Center. My first reaction was that the pedestrian crowding could have been greatly eased by just closing off the surrounding streets to motor vehicles. Sure, some minority using motor vehicles may have had to walk a few blocks further, or take a more circuitous route, but the 99% majority who were on foot would have been ten times better off. By prioritizing land use in cities based on the majority users, we can make cities a lot more liveable. This trend is already starting overseas where motor vehicles are either restricted or prohibited entirely from city centers.



> Nibble #2) I agree with your assessment of (viable) long term energy supply limitations, but don't see other limited resources holding up to the kind of increases in population you suggested. Natural resources, minerals, water, food, land will become larger concerns than energy supply.


I fully agree that in the future if population growth isn't checked the energy supply will be the least of our problems.



> My only fundamental disagreement is believing we should *increase use of nuclear & hydrocarbon energy sources (particularly natural gas)* for much longer (30-50 years), and make it cheaper, and more available to help bolster and strengthen our private economy and reduce our debt and foreign oil dependency. Otherwise, the USA is on a fast track towards world irrelevancy, leaving us to wistfully commiserate with our British mates over a pint at the pub of glorious years gone by.


 Ironically, we're not in that much disagreement here. I'm all for building more nuclear plants, but unfortunately this would be an impossible sell given how the general public currently views nuclear fission. Indeed, if I were put in charge of energy policy tomorrow, and given free reign, I would build fission plants while simultaneously electrifying as much of the transportation system as possible. This would mean high-speed rail to replace shorter (<1000 mile) journeys by air, electric cars where mass transit isn't practical, and down the road converting heavy cargo ships to nuclear power. The sad reality is as much sense as all this might make, we both know what happens the minute you mention nuclear anything. Because of this, nuclear fission is largely off the table, as much as I might wish otherwise. Maybe when things get desperate down the road the public view on this will change, or so I can hope.

Developing hydrocarbon resources are a mixed bag for me. Let's face it, oil and coal are dirty. That basically leaves natural gas. The question is do we have even remotely near enough natural gas to bridge the gap between now and some future where fusion/solar is viable? I don't have the answer to that. And any plan to greatly increase the use of any type of hydrocarbon is increasingly problematic from a political standpoint (it doesn't matter whether you believe in GW or not, fact is that it does and will affect energy policy for the foreseeable future).

My personal views on all this is sooner or later reality will hit home, and we'll need to decide between hydrocarbon or nuclear fission. Of course, this assumes no miraculous breakthroughs occur on the fusion or solar fronts. I'd personally prefer nuclear fission simply because the known supply of uranium could tide us over for thousands of years, if need be, and modern reactor designs create far less radioactive waste.

On Solyndra and other similar projects, let's not forget that funding for such projects is often based on politics rather than scientific merit. One great example is the hydrogen car. Sure, I thought the concept sounded great, at least until I studied it. Once I did, I realized a plain, old chemical battery (the kind which are getting better all the time) could do the same job as hydrogen, but 3 times more efficiently, and without the Rube Goldberg complexity of an entirely new, scratchbuilt distribution network.


----------



## milkyspit

Guys, I'm not about to jump between the two of you as I find a lively debate to be hugely beneficial, and thought-provoking for all: we can agree to disagree on points and (hopefully) learn from one another in the process. Wish some of the folks in our nation's capital would take that simple truth to heart!

Anyway, some offhand thoughts in no particular order, and not necessarily meant as a direct response/rebuttal to anything... just some things that came to mind...

On nuclear, I'm not a big fan. I see nothing wrong with it as an energy source, but rather, am skeptical that the infrastructure for storing spent fuel is even remotely well developed. My understanding is there are scads of spent fuel sitting in "temporary" lakes and similar on-site, makeshift containment media. That's not good! Combine that with the typical profit-obsessed operator, for whom things like site security and disposal safety are little more than expenses to be minimized, and I see the ingredients for an epic fail. If we cannot get such issues MUCH better addressed, further development would be sort of like taking the knife from a suicidal individual, and handing him a loaded gun instead. 

I'd very much like to see nuclear FUSION become a viable energy source, and I believe this is definitely achievable. However, to date precious little real effort has been put into bringing fusion energy to fruition.

I also believe there are numerous avenues for energy that we've yet to recognize. What are they? I have no idea! ...and that's the point. I think we as a nation, need to be somewhat open-minded about the potential for useful energy production from more than the usual suspects. It's not a one-size-fits-all game. For example, one of many intriguing possibilities is piezoelectric energy harvesting. (Interesting Wikipedia entry on this.) Among other things, research has progressed on this front in using arrays of such energy harvesters to generate electricity from ocean waves. I have no doubt there are countless similar technologies yet to discover, with the only issue whether we are clever enough to recognize them, and open-minded enough to realize their potential and give them sufficient development.

In solar itself, I recall reading about a thin film capable of maybe half the efficiency of the best conventional panels... but the thin film (a polymer?) is perhaps 10% as expensive to manufacture. The idea here would be to roll the film across the surface of a building's roof, and given the pricing, this could presumably be done far more cost effectively, and with far less infrastructure investment, relative to what we all imagine whenever someone mentions solar energy. Such technology could presumably be made more efficient and still lower cost, given sufficient refinement.

We won't solve all energy problems this way, nor will it all just magically materialize with a snap of the fingers. It's a PROCESS or even a mindset, always to be developing such things... and that, I believe, is how we'll get there.

...and I still believe LED lighting rules all. :naughty:


----------



## deadrx7conv

Free lollipops won't make a smoker quit. But, cigarette packs are so expensive now that I've notice many quit without the lollipop subsidy. 
If you want to eliminate the incandescent light-bulb, you need to make it too expensive to use. You either charge $100 per bulb, or you can triple the cost of electricity. Energy costs will rise on their own. Instead of outlawing incans, all they had to do is ban bulb imports and only allow incans made by the UAW. Should work great!
There will be nothing but failure if you try to outlaw something so common in a rebellious society. We're bred to rebel, just as the British. 

I love the few incan's that I have left. I even have one of those 'antique' bulbs. And, its beautiful to look at while sucking down 60w. 
I do enjoy the halogen bulbs, in the newer clear, frosted, and crystal scattered beam designs. Anyone stuck on old incans should look at this halogens. 
The halogen shape now looks almost identical to regular bulbs. Past halogens had some oblong or weird bulb shapes that made no point whatsoever(poor marketing to differ the bulb type). Newer halogen shapes seem identical to incan's. 
Still hope that they might get the HIR treatment one day. Makes me wonder if we will ever get Xenon/Krypton/Halogen home incans. 

I also have one friend who demands a 'battery' of incans in her bathroom. It can get cold here in the winter. Having 6x100w of bathroom mirror lighting really can warm up the 'room when reading or showering ;-) 6 exposed, over or on the mirror side, CFL or LED bulbs are just not going to happen. And, who can argue with IR heating bulbs in the middle of a Maine winter when stepping out of the tub. They'll dry you quicker than the towel. I do not think that they make a suitable CFL to replace a 'heat lamp' yet, do they? 

Its funny 'cause I was hoping to see the incans outlawed. I would've enjoyed seeing the black market open up for them. Get your R12 freon, moonshine, and incans at.... the speakeasy or Indian reservation. Prescriptions for incans? incans for medicinal purposes?


----------



## LuxLuthor

JTR - If you look at the consortium of aristocratic govt and private leaders that got together and empowered the Port Authority with its unprecedented power and outright thuggery back when they could get away with such chicanery...there's no way they could do it again today. No way anyone is going to rip out or close all the streets & roads in NYC (including burroughs) and replace them with mass transit, however much sense it would make. You saw Christie's "reality approach" when he cancelled the 20 year Hudson Train tunnel project as it was on track to rival Boston's Big Dig boondoggle. He was dealing with current financial and regulatory reality, however noble the idea. 

I go back to the imploding state of our Federal economy and the current astronomical fees and taxes in NYC...there just is not the local, state, or federal resources for such project, and I don't see much hope on the horizon as our National Debt explodes over $15 trillion. 

It's quite sobering to watch and read details on this page for more than a few minutes: *http://www.usdebtclock.org* and the foreign debt is going to keep getting worse as regulations continue cutting back domestic exploration/production, while we increase our imported energy and resource borrowing.

I don't see any way to avoid continuing the use of existing energy supplies (mostly hydrocarbon & nuclear), given the lack of money required to build new infrastructure networks, an increasingly dysfunctional federal government, paralyzing mazes of punitive regulations--combined with a growing public entitlement dependency that doesn't seem to notice the waning supply of mother's milk. I see the most likely average American's scenario being one of continuing riding the horse at full gallop until it drops dead. Then after the bewildered traveler retrieves his iPad-laden saddlebags, looks around at the trees asking "What am I supposed to do now?" The trees trying to play dumb for fear of being chopped down in some misguided moment of frustrated American retribution, remain silent. They are chopped down anyway, as the traveler needs to have an energy source to stay warm.

Oh yeah....let me be the first to also wish you a Happy New Year !  

Milky, I agree with you about the spent nuclear fuel rods. I believe there are safe ways to encapsulate and deeply store them in isolated areas, but the politics of transporting them, dealing with environmental regulatory obstacles, and "not in my backyard" mentalities make proper solutions unobtainium. I don't see enough evidence that everything is somehow going to get worked out in time to save the USA, despite cleverly harvesting the piezoelectric output of all the jumping, pounding fists, and gnashing teeth associated with their "energy tantrums." 

By the way, I have it on good authority that the trees are not at all happy being on this list with some sort of perverse "Tree Metabolic Energy Harvesting" scheme. They wish we would all just go away and let them recover their majesty in peace. Bless your heart on your continued love of LED lighting though! :kiss:


----------



## jtr1962

Thanks for the New Year's wishes, Lux, and same to you!

I pretty much agree with your last paragraph, except I might say the average American will continue to drive their car at full gallop until it drops dead from either lack of fuel, or potholes on increasingly poorly maintained streets. My only consolation is I've kept myself in good enough physical shape to travel reasonable distances by bicycle. I suspect that might be the only option for a lot of people in a generation.

And I agree wholeheartedly with Milky-LED lighting rules! :rock:


----------



## LEDAdd1ct

Oh, boy: Lux, jtr, and milky, three CPF titans...it's like reading a really good book with incredibly intelligent authors all spinning different views, sometimes complementary, often at odds...it's fascinating to "watch" more than read...keep it going, guys!

And—when it comes to pure efficiency / lumens per watt, I'm with ya on the LEDs!


----------

