incandescent light bulb ban

[ERICOPOLY]

Nationwide, about 12% of a home's power bill goes towards lighting, according to the EPA.

 

Light bulb manufacturers will cease making traditional 40 and 60-watt light bulbs -- the most popular in the country -- at the start of 2014.

 

The rules were signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2007.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/13/news/economy/light-bulb-ban/index.html?iid=HP_LN

 

 

The electric utilities aren't going to like this one  :)

 

[Liberty]

Good. My place has been 90% LED and 10% CFLs for a few years and I have no complaints. Recently got a CREE LED that has a CRI above 90, So light quality is getting quite good.

 

Incandescents offend my anti-waste engineering sense  :)

[augustabound]

Nationwide, about 12% of a home's power bill goes towards lighting, according to the EPA.

 

Light bulb manufacturers will cease making traditional 40 and 60-watt light bulbs -- the most popular in the country -- at the start of 2014.

 

The rules were signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2007.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/13/news/economy/light-bulb-ban/index.html?iid=HP_LN

 

 

The electric utilities aren't going to like this one  :)

 

Not sure about other provinces or states but in Ontario, they'll just raise rates. 

[augustabound]

Good. My place has been 90% LED and 10% CFLs for a few years and I have no complaints. Recently got a CREE LED that has a CRI above 90, So light quality is getting quite good.

 

I walk by the LED lights at the Home Depot all the time but can't bring myself to pay $15 or $20 for a bulb even though it will last until my girls are in college.

 

 

[jeffmori7]

The problem I have with LED lights and any longer life product is that for most of the people, it is difficult to believe that they last that long. It is OK to pay more now, but only if I don't have to pay again in 2 years because finally, like I tend to observe with the CFL, they doesn't seem to last what they are supposed to...

 

Liberty, so far, do you had to replace some of them? I know they have not been on the market long enough to confirm their long life expectancy, but do they perform accordingly to the specs so far among for people who have bought them?

[Packer16]

This discussion reminds me of the classic light bulb commercial:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky8x0ykF_tQ

 

Packer

[ERICOPOLY]

The heat given off by incandescent lights warms your house in the winter.  So while wasteful, it is not 100% waste.  During summer if you are running the air conditioner when you have the light on, that's when the full magnitude of the waste occurs.

 

So homes will now be colder in the winter.  More natural gas will flow to the homes.  But perhaps less consumed by the electric utilities. 

 

However, considering that electric utilities also burn coal, then perhaps this ban leads to an overall increase in natural gas consumption and an overall decrease in coal consumption.

 

Then in the Northeast, I believe heating oil is still relatively common.  I presume people will need to purchase more heating oil now to warm their homes.

[ERICOPOLY]

I think in the winter months, the big losers are the people who use radiant electric heating.  Or electric furnaces.

 

Absolutely ZERO energy will be saved (during cold spells) by switching to CFLs or LEDs.  They'll just wind up paying more for those light bulbs with no compensating offset on the electric utility bill.

 

They will only see their gains when it is warm enough to turn off the electric heater (after taking account for the lost heat from their lighting).

[beerbaron]

The problem I have with LED lights and any longer life product is that for most of the people, it is difficult to believe that they last that long. It is OK to pay more now, but only if I don't have to pay again in 2 years because finally, like I tend to observe with the CFL, they doesn't seem to last what they are supposed to...

 

Liberty, so far, do you had to replace some of them? I know they have not been on the market long enough to confirm their long life expectancy, but do they perform accordingly to the specs so far among for people who have bought them?

 

LEDs is my area of expertise. Make sure you buy EnergyStar labelled bulbs and you should be fine. EnergyStar has wisened up and now they require manufacutrers to provide in situ proofs that all components will meet about 20 000 (not sure 20 is the exact number but it's in this range) hours. This forces manufacturer to choose electrical components that cost more but last longer (ceramic cap VS electrolytic).

 

I would confidently buy the Phillips remote phosphor bulb  (it's yellow on top) as it has won the L Prize. It's been running for something like 25 000 hours now and last time I check it had still around 99% of it's initial light output.

 

http://www.lightingprize.org/overview.stm

 

So in other words pay the price and you can be confident it will last longer than advertised.

 

BeerBaron

 

[jeffmori7]

In Quebec, we have near 100% renewable energy, and we use this electricity for heating our house for the most part, so it makes sense to use LED bulb as it you are not losing in winter (heat coming from electricity anyway) and you are saving during summer and for outside lighting all year long.

[beerbaron]

I think in the winter months, the big losers are the people who use radiant electric heating.  Or electric furnaces.

 

Absolutely ZERO energy will be saved (during cold spells) by switching to CFLs or LEDs.  They'll just wind up paying more for those light bulbs with no compensating offset on the electric utility bill.

 

They will only see their gains when it is warm enough to turn off the electric heater (after taking account for the lost heat from their lighting).

 

Yes but they still win twice in the summer days since they reduce their AC unit load...

 

BeerBaron

[jeffmori7]

The problem I have with LED lights and any longer life product is that for most of the people, it is difficult to believe that they last that long. It is OK to pay more now, but only if I don't have to pay again in 2 years because finally, like I tend to observe with the CFL, they doesn't seem to last what they are supposed to...

 

Liberty, so far, do you had to replace some of them? I know they have not been on the market long enough to confirm their long life expectancy, but do they perform accordingly to the specs so far among for people who have bought them?

 

LEDs is my area of expertise. Make sure you buy EnergyStar labelled bulbs and you should be fine. EnergyStar has wisened up and now they require manufacutrers to provide in situ proofs that all components will meet about 20 000 (not sure 20 is the exact number but it's in this range) hours. This forces manufacturer to choose electrical components that cost more but last longer (ceramic cap VS electrolytic).

 

I would confidently buy the Phillips remote phosphor bulb  (it's yellow on top) as it has won the L Prize. It's been running for something like 25 000 hours now and last time I check it had still around 99% of it's initial light output.

 

http://www.lightingprize.org/overview.stm

 

So in other words pay the price and you can be confident it will last longer than advertised.

 

BeerBaron

 

Thanks BeerBaron, I will probably change my halogen bulb as they die over the next year!

[beerbaron]

Thanks BeerBaron, I will probably change my halogen bulb as they die over the next year!

 

If you are using 50W Halogen you'll likely be taking some losses in the amount of light output if you switch to LED. It's still worth it in my opinion as you'll save the hassle of changing the bulbs 2 times a year but it's good to know.

 

BeerBaron

[ERICOPOLY]

You can of course still buy a 3 way incandescent bulb to replace you banned non-3way bulbs.

 

The ban doesn't include them and they are much cheaper than LEDs.

 

Personally, I've already swapped all of my non-halogen bulbs for LEDs and CFLs.  But I know that people who shop only on price are going to buy the 3-way before the LEDs.

[jeffmori7]

Thanks BeerBaron, I will probably change my halogen bulb as they die over the next year!

 

If you are using 50W Halogen you'll likely be taking some losses in the amount of light output if you switch to LED. It's still worth it in my opinion as you'll save the hassle of changing the bulbs 2 times a year but it's good to know.

 

BeerBaron

 

Yeah halogen bulbs don't seem reliable at all..I'm pretty tired of changing them. Most of my bulb are 50W MR16 with dimmers in the house, and usually, there is too much lighting so I don't need the full power anyway. Thanks for the advice.

 

 

Eric, why haven't you changed your halogen? In this case, the price difference also seems less than LED vs incandescent so it appears to me a good choice economically?

[Guest valueInv]

I think in the winter months, the big losers are the people who use radiant electric heating.  Or electric furnaces.

 

Absolutely ZERO energy will be saved (during cold spells) by switching to CFLs or LEDs.  They'll just wind up paying more for those light bulbs with no compensating offset on the electric utility bill.

 

They will only see their gains when it is warm enough to turn off the electric heater (after taking account for the lost heat from their lighting).

 

Is the efficiency of heating form the bulb the same as that from a heater?

[ERICOPOLY]

I think in the winter months, the big losers are the people who use radiant electric heating.  Or electric furnaces.

 

Absolutely ZERO energy will be saved (during cold spells) by switching to CFLs or LEDs.  They'll just wind up paying more for those light bulbs with no compensating offset on the electric utility bill.

 

They will only see their gains when it is warm enough to turn off the electric heater (after taking account for the lost heat from their lighting).

 

Is the efficiency of heating form the bulb the same as that from a heater?

 

No, because some of the energy is "wasted" as light.

 

[Cardboard]

In my experience, halogen and incandescent fail at relatively the same number of hours. I just checked my spares and they are both guaranteed for 10,000 hours so I would tend to believe that my gut feel is right.

 

Then they save about 3 times the power of incandescent but, costs about 3 times as much. It is such a small expense to switch them all in your home as your old ones fail that I can't stand the Tea Party argument of: "Nobody should tell me what to do". In this case, I do believe that as manufacturers stop making incandescent bulbs that cost will come down a lot making the advantage truly worthwhile.

 

Regarding incandescent generating heat, it is mostly all wasted heat since they are located for the most part close to your ceiling. Moreover, often in some kind of enclosed space. So about the worst location and worst method of heat distribution. Then you have to factor in that most homes have a lot of outside lights (probably half and half for me) and saving energy with LED's makes a lot of sense to me all around. We just need their cost to fall a bit to really help the equation.

 

Cardboard

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

I suppose my heat argument applies best to an apartment building where the heat from your incandescent warms the people on the floors above you.

 

[StubbleJumper]

I use CFL bulbs in a few places in my house (because I'm a tightwad bastard careful with my money), but as a matter of principle I oppose banning incandescent bulbs.  It is completely offensive to me that governments have the audacity to take away my freedom to choose the bulb that I want without having articulated any coherent public policy objective.

 

If the concern is that we collectively consuming too much energy, or collectively emitting too many greenhouse gases, then take a coherent approach and consistently ban the most wasteful and least energy efficient devices.  So, if my incandescent lightbulbs are banned for being the least efficient lighting option, then my neighbour's Lincoln Navigator should also be banned for being among the least energy efficient transportation options.  And my neighbour's pool heater, which consumes as much electricity as all the bulbs in my entire house, should also be banned.

 

This nonsense of selectively (randomly?) banning products constitutes nothing more than populist pandering to the environuts.

[ERICOPOLY]

I use CFL bulbs in a few places in my house (because I'm a tightwad bastard careful with my money), but as a matter of principle I oppose banning incandescent bulbs.  It is completely offensive to me that governments have the audacity to take away my freedom to choose the bulb that I want without having articulated any coherent public policy objective.

 

If the concern is that we collectively consuming too much energy, or collectively emitting too many greenhouse gases, then take a coherent approach and consistently ban the most wasteful and least energy efficient devices.  So, if my incandescent lightbulbs are banned for being the least efficient lighting option, then my neighbour's Lincoln Navigator should also be banned for being among the least energy efficient transportation options.  And my neighbour's pool heater, which consumes as much electricity as all the bulbs in my entire house, should also be banned.

 

This nonsense of selectively (randomly?) banning products constitutes nothing more than populist pandering to the environuts.

 

 

There are legitimate reasons outside of the "greenhouse gas" arguments.  Such as... problem of peak load use on the electricity grid.

 

Can you alleviate pressure on the electricity grid if you draw less electricity from it?

[beerbaron]

I use CFL bulbs in a few places in my house (because I'm a tightwad bastard careful with my money), but as a matter of principle I oppose banning incandescent bulbs.  It is completely offensive to me that governments have the audacity to take away my freedom to choose the bulb that I want without having articulated any coherent public policy objective.

 

If the concern is that we collectively consuming too much energy, or collectively emitting too many greenhouse gases, then take a coherent approach and consistently ban the most wasteful and least energy efficient devices.  So, if my incandescent lightbulbs are banned for being the least efficient lighting option, then my neighbour's Lincoln Navigator should also be banned for being among the least energy efficient transportation options.  And my neighbour's pool heater, which consumes as much electricity as all the bulbs in my entire house, should also be banned.

 

This nonsense of selectively (randomly?) banning products constitutes nothing more than populist pandering to the environuts.

 

I'm sorry SJ but I have to disagree with you. Banning incandescent is a sensible policy because of the sheer volume of energy wasted in lighting. There are equivalent solutions on the market that not only last longer but also reduce the energy bill. Think of the amount of coal wasted because most people just don' know the more efficient solutions are worth it.

 

Also, I have not looked at the detail of the law but it's probably aimed at the retail market. Nobody stops you from buying from a distributor or online.

 

BeerBaron

[jeffmori7]

I use CFL bulbs in a few places in my house (because I'm a tightwad bastard careful with my money), but as a matter of principle I oppose banning incandescent bulbs.  It is completely offensive to me that governments have the audacity to take away my freedom to choose the bulb that I want without having articulated any coherent public policy objective.

 

If the concern is that we collectively consuming too much energy, or collectively emitting too many greenhouse gases, then take a coherent approach and consistently ban the most wasteful and least energy efficient devices.  So, if my incandescent lightbulbs are banned for being the least efficient lighting option, then my neighbour's Lincoln Navigator should also be banned for being among the least energy efficient transportation options.  And my neighbour's pool heater, which consumes as much electricity as all the bulbs in my entire house, should also be banned.

 

This nonsense of selectively (randomly?) banning products constitutes nothing more than populist pandering to the environuts.

 

I understand your point, but it is not because you don't apply this policy elsewhere that it is a bad policy. It is not because I choose to eat healthier food without doing more physical activities that healthier food is bad. Of course I should do both, but still better than nothing.

 

 

[cwericb]

Our city government was also of the opinion that the heat generated by incandescent bulbs was wasted energy and expense so, in their infinite wisdom, they replaced all our traffic signals with LED's.

 

Now, because the lights generate no heat, they have to have a crew and a truck with a cherry picker (boom) to clear the snow off the lights. Not only does that pose a traffic problem in itself, but if often a useless exercise because if it is still snowing, 5 minutes after they clear the lights the snow blocks them again.

 

To complicate matters, because the snow is usually accompanied with wind, this means only half the lights at an intersection are usually blocked with snow while the traffic from the other direction may not have a problem. It can make for some interesting driving.

 

There has been some talk of equiping the lights with electric heaters. Yup that will save energy.  Aaaa, progress....

[Cardboard]

Could the government have chosen a more efficient place to save on energy?

 

What about education? Does it take a mechanical engineering degree to learn a few concepts about heat transfer and insulation?

 

Programmable thermostats are a great example. They save a ton of money and are easily repaid in one year. However, people still don't understand that keeping your home at 21 C all day long and all night long in rooms when you are not there is simply wasted energy. There is this very strong misconception out there that the energy to re-heat or re-cool your home after saving for 8 hours with the thermostat is a wash. Just some basic education about heat vs cold, what insulation does, how a fridge works would help people a lot in choosing better ways.

 

Just opening and closing your blinds or drapes based on the sun makes also a large difference in the heat or cooling that your house will need.

 

I have another good misconception: It is always easier to start a car in the winter if it is not exposed to wind. Of course, it is true if your car has been stopped for just a little while since it has retained heat but, after a night out, the oil, the metal is all at the same temperature as the outside no matter what the wind force is. Here people relate to the wind chill factor on their skin, again not understanding the difference between convection and simply what is temperature.

 

Cardboard