Also, there’s a poll at the end of this article, asking about what you might be doing for the upcoming ban in California.
On January 1st, 2011, just a few days from now, California will begin phasing out the legal sale and purchase of 100-watt incandescent light bulbs. In September of this year, GE closed their last US light bulb manufacturing plant.
Here’s a Reason.tv video on why “compact fluorescent lightbulbs” (CFLs), the favored replacement for Thomas Edison’s most iconic invention are not all that. Personally I prefer LED bulbs/lights and have successfully replaced many incandescents with LED’s in my home.
The rest of the country will begin a phaseout in 2012, as mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
This law phases out the use of incandescent light bulbs between 40 watts and 150 watts over a two-year period. Apparently China will still manufacture light bulbs at least until 2017 when they’ll disappear there too.
So the question is, what will you do?
One of my TV reporter friends asked me if I knew if people were hoarding high wattage bulbs. Since my namesake is “watts”, this seemed to be the place to ask.
Here’s the poll:
The poll is just for entertainment purposes.
It is a meat grinder. It is a grinder of inbred political flesh. The resultant sausages are as one might expect, considering.
One thing they don’t tell you when you buy curly bulbs (or only in the very fine print) is that if you use them on a dimmer circuit they burn out far faster than incandescents. I bought enough for my dining room chandelier only to have them all fritz out.
Stockpiling old-style bulbs, I am.
Casper says:
December 27, 2010 at 1:29 pm
“You have to hurry up cause they will be “verboten” either
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/6142118/Spotlight-and-downlighter-bulbs-next-to-be-banned-by-EU.html
”
Thanks for the tip. Slowly living in the EU becomes a kind of survivor sport. If i had a political choice, i would use it.
LED’s seem to be the way to go but more experimentation is needed to make them practicable, there is just not enough generated light on the ones that have diffusers fitted, and the others are too bright in a very narrow beam and only useful as atmospheric lighting. Points for, are their long lasting ability. Halogens don’t last a crack, neither do incandescents and you get tired of changing them. Maybe the real answer is extensive use of fibre-optics from a single source of whatever, that’ll cut down the bills!
The ban is premature & ill informed, Most people will begin to install Low voltage halogen (down light) systems, where before they might have only used one or two 60-100w bulbs to illuminate a large room now they usually have to install up to ten 40-50w halogen bulbs and transformers, (more parts to replace means more pollution) and 10 bulbs at 50 watts (10*50w := 500w) is a greater energy usage than even two 100w light bulbs.
Also I’ve seen homes replacing their outdoor 100w bulk heads (because Cfl’s are useless and pollute the environment) with 1000w-2000w floodlights.
Homes are trading the make believe dangers of Co2 for the actual dangerous pollutants of compact fluorescent lamps & high energy alternatives.
I actually have a lot of Ideas for efficient and pleasing Lighting Alternatives but sadly who’s interested? it’s all a depressing con!
Ok, great, the European commissioner for energy is one of the communists (11 of 27 commissioners are communists).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6178082/Official-responsible-for-light-bulb-ban-is-a-former-communist.html
That explains it. They just love it when the proles sit in the dark. I guess i should stock up on soap as well.
“Oh, look,” I say, “light bulbs on sale, four for a dollar.” Then I buy a bunch, because you never know when you’ll need a bulb. So I take them home, and open the cupboard door and am buried under an avalanche of bulbs.
Short memories are a peril of getting so old that you remember the complete 60 year climate cycle. Even if I live through the next Ice Age, I will never burn up all the tungsten I have in my closet.
Not that I have anything against flooding the environment with mercury. After all, didn’t we all have mercury-silver amalgam fillings in our teeth, those of us growing up before fluoridation? It’s petty to point out that the EPA wants us all to get rid of that mercury-containing round Honeywell thermostat, safely ensconced on the wall for fifty years, and then infest our homes with breakable mercury-laden Chinese curly-cue bulbs.
The congressman who instigated the tungsten ban is slated to become chairman of the relevant committee in Congress. The Tea Partyers among us might make note of that for the next round of primaries.
It would be good to know some basic things such as what percentage of total electricity consumption currently goes into incandescent lighting, and what percentage of this percentage would be saved by switching to fluorescent, and also take into account the differences in production cost.
I have always disliked fluorescent light and I am convinced that working long hours under it has an effect on your physical wellbeing and health. I’ve known people who could stand it even less than me, and would turn off the fluorescent above their cubicle and buy some halogen or incandescent for their desk. I knew a personn who worked at eBay around 2002, who was denied permission to turn off the fluorescent above his cubicle, so he installed a beach umbrella on his desk to shelter himself from it, and bought a halogen desk lamp.
I cannot believe this banning measure can last. I am convinced that an enormous amount of people are going to find it intolerable to sit in their living room under those horrible lights. There has to be some ulterior motives to this. The savings in terms of percentage of total energy consumption have to be negligeable, and I wish somebody with the right knowledge of the basic facts could estimate them. The illumination industry is a multibillion dollar industry (probably around 80 billion in the US alone) and I would not be surprised if something beyond stupidity is afoot here. This strikes me as one of the most stupid measures since Prohibition.
I, for one, DO notice a difference in the quality of light from some CFLs and LEDs versus a standard soft white incandescent bulb. Hands down, I think the incandescent is better. Maybe it’s just me. On the other hand, I use standard fluorescent tube lighting in my workshop, and that is fine.
My problem with all of this (as others have noted) is the fact that government is mandating what bulbs we use rather than letting the market take care of it. If CFLs and LEDs are superior technologies, people will switch over. Two great examples of allowing the market to pick winners and losers are the compact disk and the iPod (and similar mp3 players). When CD were developed and mass marketed with CD players, the LP album format quickly died. Likewise, it won’t be long before CDs are obsolete and replaced entirely by the iPod/mp3 player technology. Note that the government never had to ban LPs (which you can still legally get and use :^) and will not have to ban CDs either. The market is working…
Of course what we need are for these to kick in:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/exec_summary.shtml
http://www.blacklightpower.com/Press%20Releases/BlackLightHydrinoElectricity112910.htm
http://www.blacklightpower.com/
http://www.angellabsllc.com/mytengine.html
http://www.angellabsllc.com/
Something that’s easily overlooked is that incandescent lamps are the only type of lighting that emits a full continuous spectrum. That means that not a single wavelength from below 405nm to above 650nm is missing, even though the distribution is skewed towards longer wavelengths.
When people complain about the cold light emitted by fluorescents (including CFLs) and LEDs, the ecofascists’ reaction is ‘So choose one with a lower color temperature !’. Unfortunately, that doesn’t help.
Most pigments have a discontinuous spectrum. When illuminated by a light source with a – different – discontinuous spectrum, a lot of wavelenghts go missing. That’s why fluo lighting makes things look dull and depressing….
…and why you need more power than theoretically necessary. When stated that a 10W CFL produces as much light as a 60W incandescent, that is only true when a material with a continuous reflection spectrum is illuminated. In reality there will be a mismatch between the spectra of lighting and lighted, and you will need double or treble power to obtain the same apparent brightness. Colors will still be off, of course.
Just google “fluorescent spectrum” for images and explanations.
First, I have multiple pig-tail bulbs, mostly in places that are difficult to reach and change. I have several packages of double life 60 watt bulbs – the highest rating I need.
In the future LEDs or newer technology will be fine.
Full disclosure:
I own a small amount of stock in this company:
http://www.vu1corporation.com/
DirkH says:
December 27, 2010 at 2:18 pm
……………………………….. I guess i should stock up on soap as well.
===============================================
Yes, and many other things as well. Don’t forget feminine hygiene products. If mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy. 😉
I mentioned this on another post a couple of weeks ago, and it is apt to repeat it here. A few weeks ago I bought up about a dozen 100w and 60w incandescent bulbs from an internet site as I wanted to stock up for when they finally become unobtainable. As far as I’m concerned, I prefer their light and if their usage adds a few quid to my annual electric bill then so be it.
They arrived shortly before Christmas and I installed a few immediately, throwing out all the nasty “free” (i.e. tax-payer-bought) Government hand-out mercury bulbs that all households in the UK recently got. And oh, the memories! It’s strange, but I actually became nostalgic for a bunch of bloody light bulbs! Maybe it was all the sweeter because I had a feeling of one-upmanship over the fascist state. But I had almost forgotten how nice in comparison their light is – it really is so much more pleasing to the eye.
But how sad that something once so mundane has been elevated to a luxury item by fascist Government interference, which they justify by telling us that it is to help “save the planet.” Yeah right. If I didn’t have an IQ larger than my shoe size, I might believe the corrupt, elitist SOBs.
JohnQPublic@live.ca says:
December 27, 2010 at 1:18 pm
These days legislation serves only 2 purposes: to buy votes and to settle past I.O.U.’s for prior political funding. I will let you figure out which of these are the drivers behind this new legislation.
California – the home of America’s stealth politics.
—————————————————–
So true! so succinct! Best comment on this thread! Brilliant.
Douglas
Don’t panic
http://heatball.de/
Hmm. Will the nation’s museums be required to give up incandescents? If not, they’ll need an exception. If so, get ready for van Gogh to look like shit at the next exhibit. LOL.
I have been using CFL’s for about three years now and have found that they do not last anywhere near as long as advertised. I Have been returning them to the point of purchase for a warranty replacement, but am beginning to encounter resistance. (5 year warranty) I expect they will begin charging a “fee” of some kind as it cannot be financially sound to keep replacing all these dead units. Out of an original purchase of 22 units in my home, all have failed at least once. Some as many as 5 times. I have returned a total of 57 units, so far, with ~2 years to go on the warranties. Like I said, I am getting resistance lately, and get the feeling I am about to be cut loose. I am also suspicious that CFL’s use more power than what is listed on the unit. I should show more savings on my monthly bill. Regardless, all those mercury filled dead bulbs cant be good for the environment considering there are no places for them to be recycled around here. They just get dumped into a landfill like most everywhere else.
LED’s on the other hand have so far been a great success, although the cost is extreme to say the least! I only have 4, and the light quality takes some getting used to, but I have not had to replace a single one: Yet. I am only 4 months into testing LED’s though.
Steve (Paris) says:
December 27, 2010 at 2:10 pm
“I am lifelong epileptic. After my most recent “crash landing” almost exactly one year ago I was told by the docs to avoid the flicking lights of CFLs.”
Does this mean you get incandescent light bulbs on prescription now or did they offer a free no-return flight to Canada plus guaranteed political asylum?
What about halogen light bulbs? What about dimmer switches? Hopefully the new congress will repeal this absurdity and then get it signed by our new Repub Prez in 2 yrs.
My real choice would have been, buy up all the high wattage bulbs, and then switch over to LEDs. The only real downside to LEDs is they are so directional, not really good for full coverage without doing reflection tricks, and then you need something with more power to get a decent reflection, 10W LEDs anyone?
On the one hand, you can see Scientific American claiming that headaches and other health effects associated with fluorescent lights in many people are a “myth”. These tend to be the same kind of publications who say that the MWP is a myth.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=flickering-fallacy-cfl-bulb-headaches
On the other hand you find tons of places documenting such effects.
This site collected some testimonials.
http://fluorescent-headache-eye-strain.blogspot.com/
I believe these testimonials because I happen to be affected by that kind of lighting, though not as strongly as some of those people. After a couple of hours in a closed environment with fluorescent light I become increasingly antsy and irritated and develop an irresistible urge to leave. When those lights are very bright, I find them totally unbearable. Being locked in a room with a bright fluorescent light is what I think hell might look like.
Something is wrong with those lights when so many people find them irritating. Those of you who don’t, you may count yourselves lucky. But you can also look at it this way: say you add a small amount of poison to food given to a a large group of people. Some may feel ill, others may feel some disconfort, and others may feel nothing at all. But those who feel nothing, shouldn’t they try to find out why all those people are complaining? Would they continue to eat that food once they find out that something toxic is in it? I mean, would they continue to do it IF the have an alternative? I wouln’t.
I work at home. Winter days are short and natural light is scant. My work place is lit with warm incandescent bulbs in lampshades. I KNOW that I would not be able to work very long if I had to light the place with fluorescent. It would be a nightmare.
Your survey does not make allowances for the one course of action that seems most called-for: Take political action to get the idiotic laws repealed, and/or the moronic legislators who enacted them voted out of office.
I would even go so far as to try to pass a constitutional amendment forbidding the legislator from ruling on the matter ever again. But that’s just me.
M
cyberdrop says:
December 27, 2010 at 1:42 pm
What’s with the Heatball?
The first 4.000 “Heatballs” imported from China were sold out quickly.
The second shipment however was impounded by German officials and the owners of the trading company were put in jail:
http://notrickszone.com/2010/11/23/green-police-orders-confiscation-of-enviro-contraband/
The message: don’t screw with the EU
“Yonatan Ben Dovid says:
December 27, 2010 at 11:55 am
…….Here in the UK, we have to heat our homes for the majority of the year. Replacing all our light bulbs with CFLs will simply reduce the amount of heat contribution made by our lighting products. Consequently, our thermostatically-controlled central heating systems will simply burn a little more fuel to make up the difference. ”
Similarly I leave gadgets on standby to keep my home office aired.