Farewell to the incandescent light bulb

[supersuds]

The new energy bill signed into law this week provides that the incandescent light bulb as we know it will be illegal to sell after 2012 -- so stock up on those rare appliance bulbs while you can.

I can see the advantages of saving electricity, but I still resent being told I can't buy regular light bulbs. Grr.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/business/22light.html?ex=1356066000&en=fb729fdb1ac59020&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

 

[tolivac]

Come 2008-lets vote out the politicians that came up with this sillyness.This nonesense is getting out of hand!Again vote the bums out!!

 

[travis]

I've always joked with my co-worker that we would be the last two to stop using incandescent bulbs. Fluorescents make you look ugly and the little sqiggly things are just not appealing in a vintage fixture. I don't even want to see the modern replacement to an appliance bulb in an oven or one of my monitor top refrigerators. Maybe they can legislate people driving their SUV's over a certain distance to work and back. That seems like a bigger waste of energy than my two 60 watt bulbs over my head.

I consume very little. Much of what I have or buy is someone else's used junk. I would think that's better than buying newer stuff every few years.

I agree, vote them out in 2008!

 

[launderess]

Hold On There Partner

Incandescent light bulbs aren't being totally banned by the new laws,according to the above linked article, only those that are wasteful. Also according to the article GE, Sylvania and others are well ahead of the ball and intend to have energy efficient incandescent bulbs in stores by 2010. Article goes on to state GE and other light blub makers are working on better fluorescents, that give off light similar to incandescents.

L.

 

[frigilux]

I have nothing but good to say about the modern fluorescent bulb. I switched every bulb in my house three years ago and have only had to replace one.

Although the bulbs look different, they seem completely normal once you get used to seeing them on a daily basis.

 

[tolivac]

The new CFL's are fine but don't like the politicians dictating what lamp you can use what washer or dishwasher you can buy.This nonesense has to end.ITS NOT GOING TO SAVE THE PLANET!We still need to leave it where YOU have the choice-not the politician.They are to be servents to us-not us to them.I see things getting to be like a DICTATORSHIP!we don't need that in the US.

 

[gyrafoam]

Right now I can't see anyone I want to vote for with the exception of Ron Paul and he's on a Republican ticket----and I just won't go there.

Too bad Newt Gingrich doesn't run on an Independent Ticket!

 

[paulg]

Plain stupid

In my opinion, it is WAY WAY WAY too early to mandate CFLs because it is way,way, way to early to determine reliability of those CFL lamps. Just wait till they start to fail. Manufacturer's hype says that they will last years and years and years. But that DOES NOT mean that CFLs will be working well at the point of failure. I believe people think that CFLs will work just like new throughout their entire life - then just die... like the incandescents we're used to. No,I think not. As the CFLs age you'll be seeing hard starts, slow starts, lots of flicker, odor, cracked housing, smoldering etc. BUT if it LIGHTS, the lamp is STILL GOOD! No free replacement for you! I bet by midway through the manufacturer's proposed lifetime, those CFLs will be unusuable in most people's opinions. Of course, by that time the receipt will be in the garbage. Besides that, it isn't worth the time to get a free replacement from the manufacturer. I am testing CFLs very selectively within my house purely for my education. Even the best ones are not that impressive. Many are made by the Chinese which means a quality level somehwere around the bottom. I WILL be buying those boxes of unused light bulbs from estate sales from now on just to be sure (if its Westinghouse.. LOL). I do think CFLs are ok in some circumstances but to mandate them is just plain naive and stupid.

 

[paulg]

Quality fade

Forgot one more thing. (Forgive me, you hit a hot button with me).
The CHINESE are known for their quality-fade. You may indeed find the initial lots of CFLs likely to be of acceptable quality. Oh, everyone jumps on the CFL bandwagon. Paul - what are you talking about?? CFL lamps are wonderful!!
JUST WAIT... As acceptance grows and (heaven forbid) incandescents go away, the manufacturers will drop the quality to the point where they fail, fail,fail.
Watch out for quality fade with modern product lines.

 

[neptunebob]

Gyrafoam, I would like you to take a look at Dennis Kucinich - I think you will like what you find out. Oh, and he is still in the running despite not being in the last debate. Find out more on his web site, I am there too.

While he has an energy policy heavy on conservation, he DOES NOT plan to ban incandescent light bulbs!

SUPER4DTOTO | Bandar Togel Lengkap Semua Pasaran Ada di Sini

SUPER4DTOTO adalah bandar togel online terpercaya yang menyediakan semua pasaran togel terkenal di dunia, termasuk HK, SGP, SDY, dan lainnya.

www.dennis4president.com

 

[sudsmaster]

There well may be some applications for which the older incandescent bulb technology is the only answer - such as for oven lights. I would imagine that some sort of exemption might be granted for such applications. But, who knows for sure? I wonder if the new "twice as efficient" incandescents will be able to take the heat of an oven?

As for CFL's, nearly every light in my home is fluorescent. I've even started replacing chandelier type fixtures with ceiling hugging circular fluorescent fixtures. The result is a cleaner look, and better lighting for less energy - even when the chandeliers were fitted with CFL's.

I am looking forward to the development of standard (medium) base LED lamps that can replace incandescents in fridges and freezers. I've tried using CFL's there but the low temps cause them problems.

Another black hole is the lack of any CFL that will fit a mogul base - I have a vintage floor lamp that takes such a bulb, in fact it's a 3-way bulb. I don't run it much because it's a big energy hog (100-200-300 watt) but it's still nice to light up once in a while. I guess I'll be stocking up on those bulbs just in case.

 

[frigilux]

It isn't just a matter of 'saving the planet'. It has to do with conserving energy so we don't have to build as many power plants in the future, thus releasing fewer greenhouse gases.

People in many other countries use far less energy per person than we do and their standard of living isn't much different than ours. We're just used to being very wasteful because energy prices are relatively low in the USA.

Eventually, when our energy prices spike---and they will---then Americans may decide energy-saving products aren't such a bad idea, after all.

There are many excellent energy-saving products on the market along with the bad ones. People, for instance, complain loudly about standard low water usage toilets. Why not spend a bit more and get a pressure-flush toilet? My Gerber is fantastic, and while it cost more than a standard one, it does the job with one flush, and does it better than my old water hog.

 

[danemodsandy]

Oy.

Like some other folks who've posted to this thread, I'm getting more than a little tired of being dictated to by the gummint and manufacturers. Fluorescent light is not equal to incandescent; it is cold (even the bulbs that are supposed to be "warm" in colour temperature), and the bulbs don't fit every fixture.

The things I'm accustomed to are disappearing fast, and I'm weary of it. I have a hard time finding bar soap, I have a hard time finding powdered detergent, I have a hard time finding many food products I like, I cannot buy a car that isn't laden with gummint-mandated gizmos that are supposed to save a fool's life in spite of his silly self.

What's crazy about all this is that the gummint will not do anything rational to deal with our environmental and energy crises. Soap is a very good example. Bar soap is far friendlier to the environment. Low in water content, it takes less energy to ship than pump soap. It's wrapped in a biodegradable waxed-paper wrapper, not packaged in petrochemical-laden plastic. Do you think any gummint czars have even whispered that perhaps bar soap is the way to go? Hell effin' no. Same with laundry detergent- if any common sense prevailed, we'd be seeing liquids phased out in favour of powders, which are less energy-consumptive to ship and which come in biodegradable cardboard, instead of seeing powders disappear in favour of liquids. Not a peep outta Washington over it, either.

Do you think any of the masterminds (thank you, Gloria Swanson!) in D.C. actually have the cojones to 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? Nooooo- rules like that might actually do some frickin' good and save Detroit, instead of preserving corporate status quos and this quarter's paltry profits.

I've often observed that so-called "common sense" is the least common commodity on this planet, but things are getting ridiculous.

I'd get off my soapbox, if soap actually came in such sensible containers any more.

 

[sudsmaster]

I don't think the government has anything to do with some stores deciding to stock liquid detergents instead of powders, or reducing the selection of bar soaps. It's all about what consumers buy, and how much they are willing to pay.

However in my area I've had no problem finding powdered laundry detergent, even the HE variety, nor have I had any problem finding bar soap to buy. I can even find the plainest, purest of all bar soaps, Ivory, at my local supermarket for a very good price.

Also, the energy law just passed does not dictate fluorescent lights. As has already been pointed out, it simply requires that lighting products meet certain efficiency standards.

With regard to the vehicle mileage standards, what hasn't been commented upon much if at all, is that this bill finally closes the SUV loophole. It requires ALL vehicles - cars, trucks, SUV's, to get an average of 35 mpg. Currently SUV's are classed as trucks and exempt from fuel efficiency standards. This bill will change that and it's a huge win for the environment.

 

[danemodsandy]

Ralph:

"I don't think the government has anything to do with some stores deciding to stock liquid detergents instead of powders, or reducing the selection of bar soaps. It's all about what consumers buy, and how much they are willing to pay."

I didn't mean to say that the government is mandating the replacement of powders and bar soaps with liquids- I'm saying that it's standing idly by while manufacturers fall all over themselves creating the most wasteful products possible.

I do take your point about the new energy bill closing the SUV loophole, but it's a good fifteen years late, plus it does not really mandate smaller cars, which is what it's going to take to get real mileage gains in the hurry we need. 35 mpg just isn't all that great- ask our European members.

I'm just saying that our energy policy is piecemeal, doesn't address some very big areas of waste, and often seems to offer a curiously high level of financial benefit to corporations.

 

[brisnat81]

Our oldest Compact Fluorescent

Is now 10 years old.

Its one of the early Philips ones that you could retain the base but just swap out the tube. Its huge, but it still starts instantly and works perfectly. Out of the 30 CF Bulbs we have installed, two failed within 6 months and we just rang the Philips customer care line and had them returned. The rest are now a minimum of 18 months old and have had no problems.

We now have only 4 non CFL globes in our house, the oven, rangehood, Fridge (LED), Washer (LED). My understanding in Australia, is that specialty bulbs will still be available, just not the standard incandescent bulb.

Anyone who complains about the startup times or colour of a good quality CF globe hasnt tried one recently. 95% of our globes are Philips and are instant on down to about 5degC with immediate brightness. The latest generation of Philips bulbs, include a range that is the same size as a standard incandescent bulb and is rated at 60watts equivilent. All of our outside fixtured had an incandescent rating of 60watts, I've since put 120watt equivielent CF bulbs in and the difference is amazing.

The big benefit to us, is the $15 per quarter drop in our power bill that has occured since we made the change. Not only do we get more light, but it costs less.

I personally dont see what the big deal is, if the CF Globes were still cool coloured and slow to start I might understand, but the ones we get here are at least as good as a standard incandescent.

 

[petek]

Our house is about 98% fluoresent now cepting the oven,mw,range hood, dryer and one outdoor spotlight which are all low use anyways. I'm more than happy with them. The Philips so far have been the best, instant on. The Noma and Sylvania I tried not quite so good so I put those into closet fixtures etc. rather than waste them. They're great in the dining room light fixture, 6 CFL's lighting up for the cost of about 80 watts of power. I only wish they were dimmable, that's the only downfall. I can't seem to find dimmable CFL's easily and the few I've seen are much too expensive currently.
I bought a GE torchier lamp that uses a dimmable GE D2 lamp but it became hard starting after a few months, now it can take about 15 minutes before it even decides to light. I also got 2 GE bedroom ceiling light fixtures that use the D2 lamp but I don't want to install them now if there's a problem with D2 lamps.

 

[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?"

So, what's the difference? Either way a governmant mandate is dictating access to the products a consumer may want or desire. The argument makes no sense.

Instead, educate consumers as to what it costs to build a power plant to handle increased demand, and what that cost will do to their monthly utility bills. This is why utilities sponsor (and pay for) Demand Side Management programs which promote products like CFLs, high efficiency air conditioning systems, etc. Or do nothing and wait until utilities start charging residential customers a demand charge, like commercial customers must pay, to offset the cost of peak generation, as some have done in certain residential markets. Lack of conservation gets very expensive, very quickly. The cost of a new plant is staggeringly expensive. Someone has to pay for it, so it goes into rate base.

As for vehicles, consumers have seen the affects of "careless consumerism", and it doesn't appear to be having an adverse affect on their buying habits, even as gas prices have exceeded $3.00 a gallon. So, what do we do? Just keep going on like we've been doing? Or, as was suggested, have Washington tell Detroit to get on the ball??

It doesn't seem that consumers "get it" without that ever-annoying government intervention and interference, which is kind of counter to a free market economy. As someone put it previously, other societies with similar standards of living to ours do so with a smaller per capita expenditure for energy. Why can't we? Because no one makes us?

I've had CFLs for years, so what? They work just fine, indoors and out in the "harsh" Florida winters. None of these have ever faded, flickered, failed to start, or turned yellow with age. The CFLs in the coach lights have been running for almost 2 years now, dusk to dawn, every single day, and they're still going strong. I have them all over the house and haven't replaced a single bulb yet (except that one that I dropped....oooops!). There is a noticeable differene in heat output in the rooms where they live in the summertime. Very noticeable.

 

[sudsmaster]

I think there are multiple resaons why the move to more efficient lighting is being legislated.

For one thing, people are creatures of habit. Many will continue to replace incandescent bulbs with incandescent bulbs, no matter how much they are "educated" about the energy savings. This is especially true when the more efficient bulbs cost more than the older type.

If people continue to buy the inefficient incandescent bulbs, companies will continue to make them. Stores will continue to stock them. Energy will continue to be wasted.

The same goes for cars. The popularity (until recently) of huge gas guzzling SUV's is enabled by the fact that there is a loophole in the mileage legislation, which exempts trucks. One Prius can go four times as far, or more, on a gallon of gas than a Lincoln Navigator, a Hummer, a Suburban, or a Commander. OK, so what if people want to pay for the gas? Well, it puts our nation ever deeper into hock to the oil exporting nations of the world, something clearly is not in our collective best interests.

What hasn't been commented upon, so far, here, is that the new energy standards apply not only to car and trucks and lightbulbs, but also to appliances like washers and dishwashers. My best guess is that this likely will mean the end of the traditional agitator-driven top loader in this country. People will have to choose between Cabrio/Harmony style toploaders, or front loaders. And maybe we'll start seeing A/C-Dryer combinations, such as are being pioneered over in Asia. What it will do to dishwashers I can't imagine. I thought they were rather efficient already. Perhaps no more heated dry, who knows?