Farewell to the incandescent light bulb

[danemodsandy]

AndrewInOrlando:

"I don't really understand why it's not okay to mandate the use of more efficient light bulbs, yet it is ok to mandate that Washington tell Detroit that it's "time for some really hard-ass mandates over vehicle size, gross weight, and engine displacement, instead of vague "corporate average fuel economy" rules that damn near made the SUV inevitable?""

Andrew:

I take your point that I seem to have presented an inconsistent argument, and I apologise for any lack of clarity. My intention was to communicate that there are governmental interventions that are necessary, and those that are needlessly obtrusive. In the case of mandates over vehicle size, gross weight, and engine displacement, such mandates would actually help keep choices open for consumers. Within the limits of the mandates, they could choose any size, style, or elaboration they wanted. Without mandates, we are getting into dangerous territory, because every wasted gallon of gas means that the remaining supply of oil is just that much more valuable, and therefore expensive. We're already seeing the working poor and the lower echelons of the middle class squeezed hard by gas prices, and it's going to get much worse. At $3 a gallon, you're beginning to see workers squeezed out of jobs they can't afford to drive to, etc. At $5 or $6, you have a ripple effect on our economy that might undermine our way of life to a very significant extent. We have to save gas if we're going to maintain the choice of personal transportation, pure if not exactly simple.

What I object to is mandates that effectively eliminate affordable, reliable technologies in favour of less-proven ones that cost more. Energy standards for washing machines are a good example. It's getting very much harder for top-loaders (cheap, proven tech) to meet the standards, so front-loaders are the most available machines now. But front-loaders cost significantly more than top-loaders, their HE detergents are more expensive, and front-loaders- at least current models- seem to be less reliable than top-loaders. It is true that many consumers can and have made the transition, but what about the working poor and those on fixed incomes? Does anyone really think that a $600-2000 washer, plus its expensive detergent and the likelihood of expensive repairs, is within the reach of a working poor family? For now, they can get by with an old top-loader, but the unreasonable mandates we have for washers will dry up the supply of top-loaders sooner or later. What then? Will clean clothes become a privilege for the wealthy?

Poor people often cannot afford the front-end costs associated with energy savings, even though the investment would save them money- they have to pay for their lives from paycheck to paycheck, because they never earn enough to get ahead. When the time comes that incandescent bulbs are no longer readily available, I promise you that $3-$5 per fluorescent will be a pinch for those who rely on those four-for-a-buck incandescent cheapies at Big Lots and Dollar General.

And there were and are other ways to mandate energy savings for lighting. Retrofitting older commercial buildings, reducing outdoor lighting, reducing the amount of advertising display lighting used by "strip" businesses (look at the amount of lighting on a Wendy's or a Blockbusters sometime). We could reduce lighting energy use by beginning with users well able to afford it, instead of impacting those who can't afford it so easily.

What I'm trying to say here is that the goverment, as my high-school Spanish teacher used to say, is putting the ac-CENT on the wrong syl-LA-ble, in my opinion. We need sensible mandates that extend our resources and maintain as much choice as possible, using affordable, reliable technologies to the extent feasible. We do not need mandates that cost people money they genuinely can't afford, promote unreliable tech, and/or eliminate choice entirely.

I hope you understand that all this is in the spirit of discussion, and not intended to be argumentative.

 

[58limited]

~"And there were and are other ways to mandate energy savings for lighting. Retrofitting older commercial buildings, reducing outdoor lighting, reducing the amount of advertising display lighting used by "strip" businesses (look at the amount of lighting on a Wendy's or a Blockbusters sometime). We could reduce lighting energy use by beginning with users well able to afford it, instead of impacting those who can't afford it so easily."

I agree. Look at car lots, refineries, and other places. I can't use my telescope here because of all of the light pollution. Have you seen those night time satellite pictures of earth? Not many dark areas in the U.S. until you get west, then its bright again on the west coast. I remember 1979. We as a country conserved fuel by using fewer lights in homes and businesses, cities/states turned off every other street light on highways, etc. I belive Prague and other cities have actually cracked down on "light pollution" in order to allow people to see the stars and a little darkness.

In reference to the quality fade mentioned above, incanescents have been a victem of this too. I distinctly remember when I was a kid the boxes of 100W bulbs stating that they lasted 1500 hours, now it is down to 750 hours. The brightness (lumens) is decreased too. I switched to 130V bulbs. These are the ones marketed as 20,000 hour bulbs when run on 110V. Many places sell them for over $3.00 each, but my local hardware store had them in four packs for $1.50. When their supplier changed sources two years ago, I bought every one the store had. Most have lasted years, a few only two years. I have 9' ceilings and have to use ladders (not step stools) to change my bulbs. I'm now starting to use CFLs in my hard to reach fixtures since my supply of 130V bulbs is slowly dwindling thanks to one outdoor light that kept blowing bulbs - I checked and rechecked the wiring and can find nothing wrong, moisture can't get to it easily, but it could be condensation. The CFL is working perfect in this fixture.

The best incandescent light I have found is the cheap two pack (for $5) flood light bulbs I got at Lowe's (I think). Forgot the manufacturer, but it was a light green box. I had one last 3 1/2 years of 18-24 hour per day use (I had a light sensor to turn it off, but that area is shaded all but 4-6 hours a day, and on cloudy days it stayed on). It even survived a hurricane and only quit working because I broke it

As far as cars, modern trucks often only get 16-21 mpg. Compare that to my 50 year old inefficient engine (compared to todays capabilities) 5,000 pound '58 Buick which gets 15mpg with or without the A/C running. Many new trucks are actually lighter than my Buick - have we made any progress? An early 80's Chrysler K Car got 35mpg. New cars get about the same - any progress? To be fair, efficiency increases have allowed us to get a lot more power out of engines while keeping gas mileage about the same, so you can argue that we have increased efficiency. I like horsepower as much as the next man, but do we really need it for day to day driving?

Having said all of this, I personally do not like the government to dictate to me what I can use for lighting or even what I can drive. I personally believe a large part of energy waste comes from businesses (look at all of the lights left on all night at car dealerships, etc, etc.), not residential use. Just as I think a lot of air pollution comes from diesel trucks and buses, not gas cars - modern pollution standards are pretty good, but look at the brown-black crap coming out of big trucks, kinda looks the same color as the big city smog cloud doesn't it? Government doesn't seem to regulate the transportation industry on pollution and businesses as much on energy waste, just us regular citizens.

 

[58limited]

I did a cut and paste and missed it on proof reading. The last sentence of my above post should have read:

Government doesn't seem to regulate the transportation industry AS MUCH on pollution and businesses as much on energy waste, just us regular citizens.

 

[sudsmaster]

Regarding car mileage over the years...

Newer cars weigh a lot more than cars of 20 or more years ago. That's due to better crash protection, sound proofing, etc. That K car was, comparatively, a tin can.

The K car also had an underpowered motor. As I recall it came standard with a 2 liter four, which if it made more than 100 HP it was lucky. The smallest chrysler product today, the Dodge Calibre, has a stock 2.4 liter motor making 150 HP. In general, car motors today make a lot more power than those of a few decades ago. Although they are also more efficient, you can't get that power for nothing - it raises fuel consumption per mile. The lenient mileage requirements have encouraged the HP race.

Finally, mileage standards have been tightened in the past year. Newer car mileage figures are supposed to reflect actual driving conditions more, instead of a closed circuit flat track. As a result, official mileage figures have gone down by more than a few mpg.

 

[hydralique]

CAFE and fuel economy standards

One reason cars here are much less efficient than those worldwide is due to the stupidity of the whole CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) concept. In every other country with any penalty for owning a large or powerful car, the tax is paid by the indivudual when the car is registered. In contrast, CAFE fines the manufacturer for making an inefficient car. The actual payment is from them to the government and since there is no way to account for internal cash flow within companies, there is no way to tell if the monies for the fine actually come from the sale of the cars being taxed or from the sale of other, more efficient cars. Plus, most people finance cars and so any additional cost is financed, usually over for to six years, making the tax pretty small on a monthly basis.

The result is that CAFE is probably the most ineffective way to tax inefficient cars that could be devised. When it was initially implemented over thirty years ago, we had the least fuel efficient fleet in the world. We still do. If the government actually wants to encourage the purchase of efficient cars (as opposed to just collecting money), then it should dump CAFE in favor of simple registration taxes that target oversized, overweight, inefficient cars and must be paid directly by the owner without involving the manufacturer. This has worked in many other countries. There should of course be exemptions for collector cars which rarely get driven enough to matter.

I would suggest the same system for light bulbs. Don't penalize the manufacturer, just tax incandescent bulbs to the point where they cost more than LED or CF lamps. Then people will think before buying them, but they'll still be available for those who really need them (for special fixtures) or who prefer them enough to pay extra.

I am amazed by how a bunch of inept politicians can take a simple concept and make it mind-bogglingly complex.

 

[spankomatic]

Candles are next...

 

[danemodsandy]

Light Pollution:

"I can't use my telescope here because of all of the light pollution."

I hear ya. My neighbour across the street has his front yard lit up like daylight all year round. Now that it's Christmas, it looks like he's advertising that Wayne Newton and Charo are going to appear there.

 

[sudsmaster]

Light Pollution

I have mixed feelings about it...

There's a very bright streetlight just a door down from my place. I casts a light orange glow over everything, making photos of the xmas lights look washed out and de-colored. On the other hand, when it failed a few weeks ago, I was on the phone to the city repeatedly, demanding that they fix it. This end of the block was very dark without it, and I'm positive that it helps deter unwanted characters (burglars and robbers among others).

However it's not too difficult to travel to a more remote area of the state and see the stars in all their glory. I guess it's more difficult to do that on the East Coast.

 

[tolivac]

Light pollution-mostly due to poorly chosen or poorly designed fixtures that cast light in unwanted areas.Making cutoff fixtures for outdoor use is not difficult.These fixtures would be a boon to astronomers.Cutoff fixtures are available for streetlighting-these should not interfere with skywatchers.In fact these fixtures can use lower wattage light sources since all of the light is focused to the ground or street where its needed.none is directed upward.

 

[tolivac]

also think about all of this ballyhoo about lighting equipment-esp when lighting IS NOT the primary energy user in most homes and business-its the HVAC,food refrigeration,cooking,and water heating.Yet do we see strict requirements on HVAC equipment,water heaters,and fridges-esp commercial-industrial ones.the requirements are there but not so ballyhooed-as for lighting equipment.Think of it-that oven,water heater,etc is burning up far more power than ANY incandescent bulb!These things need to be put in better perspective.Politicians need to stop mindlessly banning things and starting thinking more-this is not happening.Otherwards these guys are really not TECHNICALLY qualified to make the erronious decisions they are making.ENOUGH ALREADY!

 

[tolivac]

Dimmable CFL bulbs and fixtures-you would probably have less trouble with the bulbs if you don't run them dimmed all the the time-like halogen bulbs.both the Halogen and flourscent bulbs should be run a full brightness perodically.The halogen cycles don't work on halogens that are dimmed all of the time-the bulb isn't getting hot enough for the halogen cycles to work.Otherwards a halogen bulb dimmed all of the time won't really last as long as one that runs a full power.Sounds strange but the bulb and its bulb walls have to run hot to evaporate the halogen chemical and tungsten to regenerate the tungsten back into the filament.the halogen(Iodine or Bromine) acts as the chemical "carrier" for the process.For flourescent and HID bulbs-there are dimming fixtures and ballasts for HID bulbs-esp metal halides.the color quality of these can change when the lamp is dimmed.Flourescent bulbs and hid bulbs should be run at full brightness and power for about 100hrs before dimming so as to distribute the mercury and chemicals in the bulb or its arc tube.then after the 100 hr break in period the bulb should dim better and be more stable.

 

[mattl]

Sorry, no.

Sorry, I will go black market for bulbs if I can't get what I want here. My (well sort of) government wants to turn me into a criminal because I like a certain kind of light? You find me a replacement bulb that has the same color qualities and look as a halogen spot and I might try it. I have about 40 recessed lights in my home and I sure as hell don't want that dull diffused fluorescent crap that passes for light coming out of them. CFLs have their uses, I have 4 outside in my lampposts, and some in a closet or two, but that is as far as I'm willing to go with them. LED technology is progressing, and perhaps a combination of CFL and LED can approximate an incandescent bulb, but that is a ways off.

I design with light. I want pools of sharply focused light. I want shadows. I want to set a mood, to make items pop, to flood a work area with focused light. I use uplights around my house plants, they would not survive the winter with CFLs. Light is important to me and some govt. lackey is going to dictate to me what I can use in my home? We are becoming the USSR.

 

[tolivac]

Mattl-for replacement light sources for Halogen-try low wattage metal halides-its a discharge lamp-provides higher efficiencies than halogen-but MH has the disadvantage it needs a ballast-takes time to warm up.Some varieties are dimmable-requires a dimming ballast.Otherwise I am with you that the nonsense of Gov't intrusion in our homes,bathrooms,laundry rooms,kitchens,and lawns has got to stop.Take note of the records of legislatiopn passed by Senators and Congressmen,vote away the ones that come up with these silly laws.

 

[perc-o-prince]

Find out more on his web site, I am there too.

Bob,

I went to the Kucinich site, and there's a link to "take the test," but the link goes to a domain registering service! Can you access the test?

Chuck

 

[panthera]

What I don't get

is why on earth folks are so willing to ignore reality.
In 1973, at the very latest, we were told in no uncertain terms that we had placed our economies and welfare (we meaning EC and US) in the hands of suppliers who hate us, wish us harm and are willing to see the world go up in flames before they grant women, gays, children or dogs the most basic rights.
Since then, the US has done virtually nothing to reduce this vulnerability. Under the current administration, in fact, it has, sadly, made Americans even more vulnerable to these horrid people.
The EC has done better, if only marginally. It really wasn't until about five years ago in Germany that politicians woke up and realized that developing new technologies and exploiting other forms of energy creates lots of new jobs and provides security.
Would someone please explain to me just why it is patriotic to hold the US hostage to people who wish to destroy western culture? I am visiting relatives here in Colorado and Wyoming these days and to listen to them tell it...well, gosh.

 

[danemodsandy]

Heh.

"In 1973, at the very latest, we were told in no uncertain terms that we had placed our economies and welfare (we meaning EC and US) in the hands of suppliers who hate us, wish us harm and are willing to see the world go up in flames before they grant women, gays, children or dogs the most basic rights."

And that's just our own corporations and Congress.

 

[sudsmaster]

I got on the CFL bandwagon early on. I remember buying clunky magnetic coil ballast light "bulbs" at a now-defunct Home Depot clone in the early 90's (name escapes me) and running those in my home. Also, the circular ones with magnetic ballast. The technology has come a long way since then of course.

I also got some dimmable circular fluorescent torchieres back around 1999. I didn't much like they way they acted (and sounded) when dimmed, so I kept them mostly on full brightness. The mercury diffusion explanation makes sense... and it does seem to me that they work better nowadays than earlier.

I figure LED's will take the place of halogen spot lights, eventually, as they can shine a very focused beam of light. I put an LED replacement in one of my big Maglite flashlights, and am very impressed with the brightness and how long the batteries last. The color rendition seems pretty good as well. It wasn't cheap - about $20 - but I figure it's worth it.

Tolivac is right; refrigeration (and air conditioning) is probably the biggest energy consumer in a home with non-electric heating. Others have probably heard me say it multiple times, but I replaced a '70's GE sxs fridge with a year 2000 KA unit, and the yearly consumption (officially) went from 1700 kwh/yr to about 650 kwh/yr. That's a dramatic improvement.

 

[mattl]

My thoughts...

My thoughts as to why we are in the energy mess we are in tend to focus on lobbyists and a president that is owned by big oil. Once, back a few decades, when this country was great we had leaders who did not shy away from a challenge. We faced problems head on and turned to our brilliant minds and vast manufacturing infrastructure to find solutions. We had the minds and capabilities to win WW II. We prospered in the 50's and 60's due to technical inventions, creating jobs and a better life for many. We created the Apollo project to get us to the moon. Is there any leader out there that has to foresight see see the myriad benefits a program like that would create?

What we need is true leadership. We need and Apollo project to replace the internal combustion engine. We need a Manhattan project to replace coal, oil and gas generated electricity. But this won't happen because big oil owns the president and congress. GM , Ford and Toyota all fight any regulations that might create more efficient vehicles. This isn't a government for the people, it's government for big business. We get what big business and it's stock holders want us to get. We have a disappearing middle class, because it cost took too much from the bottom line to support the people who bought the products they were producing. Ship that job to Cambodia, they'll work for pennies and not ask for health insurance.

So, we are told we can't light our homes as we see fit. We are not allowed to choose how this is done. It's simply by fiat. Because our leaders do not have the balls to do something innovative and forward thinking we are doomed to live in darkened caves. Government at it's Soviet styled best, "you will take what we decree and like it!"

Bah, humbug.

 

[andrewinorlando]

I agree with many of the things posted in the discussions here....many of you raise very valid and excellent points. But remember, energy in its raw form that we know of today, is not an infinite supply. And while most of us, myself included, don't like to be told what we can buy or not buy or use in or homes to wash our clothes and our dishes, energy conservation and efficiency have to start somewhere. There is no one perfect solution that works for all. I think we can agree that that would never happen. So, either we alienate the "working poor" by mandating more expensive higher efficiency appliances/light bulbs, or we piss of more affluent folks by levying substantial energy impact fees (taxes) on that new BMW 750i that Muffy just had to have for her birthday. Where do you draw the line between what's fair and what's over the top? And are additional energy taxes going to solve anything? How does that money get spent? What good does it do for the energy consuming public? Is its end result the reduction of energy consumption or is it just beaureaucratic bullshit? Can we measure it? Or is it better to do nothing and hope/expect/pray that ordinary citizens will feel the necessity and take action on their own, maybe once energy becomes prohibitively expensive in its essential daily forms to the point that it impacts the economy? If government mandates the more expensive, higher efficiency technologies, their prices will come down, no question about that, because these will no longer be considered "premium" products. They now become more run of the mill. Years ago, CFL bulbs were in the area of $8 - $12 a piece. Today, you can get them for under $2 or even less.

My point is that the line has to be drawn somewhere. Do we do like France does, and have a long range plan to replace electric generation in this country with nuclear power? That would solve a whole slew of problems....pollution, fossil fuel reliance, transportation of fossil fuels, etc., and create a whole new set of problems, but electricity will be plentiful and less expensive, and we'll be at no one's mercy as far as our fuel supply goes. Or do we just do nothing and hope that folks will get the message when they feel the pain?

Banning light bulbs alone ain't gonna do squat, and I think we pretty much know this. It's the precedent such an action sets for future legislation to restrict or regulate other products and choices that we currently enjoy. The problem with the United States has always been that we are a nation of plenty, and we seem to think we have the right to continue to expect that this "plenty" will never run out. And maybe it won't. But do we take that chance? Do we put ourselves on the precipice of potential disaster just because we believe we have that right and/or expectation? It's a very tough balancing act, and not everyone is going to be happy with the solutions, but that doesn't mean those solutions shouldn't be put out there, through legislation if absolutely needed to avoid catastrophes that it may be difficult from which to recover.

I remember back in the early 80's when the former LILCO came out with their CFL Residential Rebate program. The CFL lamp technology was fairly new, and the CFLs that came from Lights of America and from SATCO, in my opinion, really sucked. The light was yellow, not "soft white", but yellow. Some of the bulbs barely lasted 6 months, flickered, and caused radio/TV interference in some cases, and some of the bulbs wouldn't fit certain lamps unless the customer bought a harp extender. But look at this technology now...different sizes, shapes and color outputs to suit a variety of different uses. With necessity being the mother of invention, the possibilities could be endless, but, we have to start somewhere. Yeah, it's a drop in the bucket, but many other countries have a head start on us, and many of them did it without legislation or regulation. To me (and this is just my own humble opinion), that's where we should be because we're not a nation of idiots.

 

[toggleswitch]

What's our oil doing under their sand?

Now, if we would only divert the money we stick into war into alternative energy including solar energy.........
It is our patriotic duty to stop sending money to these place that supply oil. Especially when some are hell-bent on world domination and hate-mongering.

Perhas we need to burn garbge to produce electricity (to partialy reduce oil consumption)and we need to have a photvoltiac solar panels on every roof courtesy of the gov't, feeing the grid. Beefed-up thermal insulation in every new and renovated structure, etc. In my own office buildng there are no sensors to turn-off or dim common-area/ hallway lighting at night when the buildng is unoccupied.

There are so many ways to save energy. So simple, so effective and some are extremely easy to adjust to with no measurable decrease in living standards or comfort.

To me, getting rid of incandescent lighting is not the answer to anything. I am not by nature a hoarder, but since it is a very base instinct, I can learn to be to keep my light bulbs!