incandescent light bulb ban

[ERICOPOLY]

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....

 

That's hilarious.

[ERICOPOLY]

I just turned off the central heating and opened my doors.  Ahh.... it's over 70 here today  :)  Forecast for Monday is 77.

[cwericb]

Yeah, well its -18C or 0 F here today and and a foot of snow and high winds for tomorrow. We've had winter here since mid November and normally we rarely see snow before January.

 

I've spent a fair amount of time in Cuba. Ten years ago on my first trip there I was very surprised to find that there were no incandescent bulbs to be seen. All bulbs had been relaced had been replaced by CFL's and that was in 2003.

[Liberty]

 

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?

 

So far no problems. Most of mine are Philips, but i also have GEs, Samsungs, and CREEs.

 

I've always found it worse to have heat sources I can't turn off (because I don't want to be in the dark) during the hottest, most humid days of summer than not saving as much electricity during the cold time of the year because I now get less heat from lights... The process of moving heat out via A/C is probably not that efficient anyway, so that's another layer of waste.

 

In places where people heat with natural gas, it's more efficient to burn the natural gas for heat in your home than to burn it in a power plant because of the losses that occur there and during transmission. So heating with incandescent lightbulbs was never that great, especially since electricity is a more "high grade" (you can do more useful things with it, such as run a computer) form of energy than heat from burning fuel, so priority should be put in using it for these higher uses rather than heating with it.

 

But here, we have electric heating from hydro, so it's a wash on that front, but still better during summer.

[kevin4u2]

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

 

“No tendency is quite so strong in human nature as the desire to lay down rules of conduct for other people.”  William Howard Taft

[Liberty]

“No tendency is quite so strong in human nature as the desire to lay down rules of conduct for other people.”  William Howard Taft

 

You also can't buy a car without a catalytic converter or run a coal plant without lots of emission controls. Horror!

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2012/06/what-pittsburgh-looked-when-it-decided-it-had-pollution-problem/2185/

[matjone]

I've observed that sometimes these supposed money savings aren't worth it.  In the house I grew up in we had the old mercury switch thermostat and it lasted decades.  It was easy to troubleshoot and when we had problems with the furnace my dad fixed it himself. 

 

When I bought a house the furnace had a circuit board and it failed, and it took a trained HVAC contractor with decades of experience several visits to fix it.  I can't remember the total cost but it was a few hundred dollars.  I was out of town so I had to call in neighbors and family to go over there and pour anti-freeze in the toilet and turn on the faucets to keep the pipes from freezing.  Ended up paying the neighbor 50 bucks for his trouble in all of it.  I would have been happier with the less efficient and more reliable old school technology.

 

 

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

[hyten1]

i have also recently switch majority of bulbs to LED (the ones that rarely gets used, i left it as the old bulb)

 

beerbaron, would like to hear about which bulbs is best to buy so that it actually last for 20,000 hrs.

 

you mention philips brand? is it all philips? or does it have to be philips and energeystar? or would any energystar do?

 

i guess its a little too late, i have already spend a few hundred dollars on the led bulbs hopeing they will last for 20k hrs. but who knows.

 

thanks

 

hy

[jeffmori7]

Banning incandescent will probably bring down LEDs cost so in the end, everyone will win. As the alternative already exist, I think it's stupid to fight for freedom of choice while energy could be used much more efficiently elsewhere. I really think, like Cardboard said, that this is not worth the fight.

 

 

Cardboard, you also made a great point about basic knowledge in heat transfer, but I tend to think that while it could probably be helpful, sometimes strict regulation are far more efficient in the short term because people don't act rationally, even if they were teach the knowledge. I think it is also our duty to share our knowledge around us if the education system fails to do so!

[beerbaron]

i have also recently switch majority of bulbs to LED (the ones that rarely gets used, i left it as the old bulb)

 

beerbaron, would like to hear about which bulbs is best to buy so that it actually last for 20,000 hrs.

 

Well, this is the one that won the L Prize. As I said it's been tested for 25 000 hours and still works as new. It's ugly when not lit up tough so I would put in a fixture where the bulb is apparent.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Philips-422220-17-Watt-75-Watt-Dimmable/dp/B008NNZT20/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1387056785&sr=8-12&keywords=philips+bulb+led

 

you mention philips brand? is it all philips? or does it have to be philips and energeystar? or would any energystar do?

 

EnergyStar is really a must because to get the logo the manufacturer has to prove that all components will last as long as expected. Also, to have the logo you have to offer a minimum warranty. I would stay with reputable brands tough, Philips, OSRAM, Cree are the first that comes to mind.

 

i guess its a little too late, i have already spend a few hundred dollars on the led bulbs hopeing they will last for 20k hrs. but who knows.

 

You'll know in 5 years from now. Up until then I would not lose sleep over it :)

 

BeerBaron

[shoeless]

Some specific products discussed/recommended here, including some Philips:

http://thesweethome.com/reviews/the-best-led-lightbulb-is-the-cree-warm-white/

 

[kevin4u2]

“No tendency is quite so strong in human nature as the desire to lay down rules of conduct for other people.”  William Howard Taft

 

You also can't buy a car without a catalytic converter or run a coal plant without lots of emission controls. Horror!

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2012/06/what-pittsburgh-looked-when-it-decided-it-had-pollution-problem/2185/

 

If someone's externalities cause you harm take them to court (individual or corporate).  That is the purpose of a rule of law.  You don't need to infringe on someone's freedom.  Why not hold those companies accountable for the pollution in Pittsburgh?

 

If these light bulbs are such a great idea, why can't the exchange be voluntary?  Why is forced coercion required? 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

If these light bulbs are such a great idea, why can't the exchange be voluntary?  Why is forced coercion required?

 

On the positive side, we do all benefit by having fewer electricity transmission lines.  In some areas, there are brownouts during peak loads. 

 

Plus, it's really no extra bother in screwing one type of light bulb versus another.  They are interchangeable. 

 

It's not like you are being forced to bicycle to work instead of driving your car.  That would save more energy but it would perhaps be a serious impediment to your ability to live your life as you please. 

 

This is not freedom limiting.  No more so than say, having a building code that doesn't allow you to put single-pane glass windows in your home.  Sure, the double pane glass costs more.  Isn't that freedom-limiting too?  I guess it is. 

 

 

[tyska]

Sort of on the same lines, but not discussing personal freedoms.  :) The last Consumers Report had a write up on LED bulbs. In the article they talked about how to compare the bulbs to incandescent as far as light output and the lighting they give off.  In the article they say that to replace a 60 watt you should be looking for a bulb that puts out at least 800 lumen. Yet a lot of the bulbs have packaging leading you to believe it is a 65 watt replacement, only had an output of 650 lumen. I would have thought that is something they would have been all over for its misleading nature.

 

On a personal note we replaced our cfl pot flood lights with led when, Saskpower had their instant rebate, and are very pleased with them. Instant on and a lot whiter light as opposed to the yellow the cfl's gave off. What I don't understand is how the metal housing on them gets so hot you are unable to touch, when they are only using 13 watts.

[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.

 

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

[/quote

 

“No tendency is quite so strong in human nature as the desire to lay down rules of conduct for other people.”  William Howard Taft

 

 

 

Amen.  My neighbour has the right to engage in the wasteful silliness of using copious quantities of electricity to heat a swimming pool in the northern latitudes, but I no longer have the right to buy a goddamned 100 watt incandescent lightbulb so that I can quietly read a book in my house using the type of soft light that I like to read with?

 

And the government cannot even lay out the principles that gave rise to this policy so that we can apply those principles equally, consistently, and coherently across the products and across the economy?  If the most efficient appliance is to rule the day, then goddamnit, insist that the most efficient device be used everywhere and always instead of cherry-picking.

 

If electricity consumption is the problem, then tax the hell out of it in the Pigouvian tradition, but DO NOT usurp my right to choose in a random, incoherent manner.

[ERICOPOLY]

I no longer have the right to buy a goddamned 100 watt incandescent lightbulb so that I can quietly read a book in my house using the type of soft light that I like to read with?

 

You'll be fine -- the ban does not include 3-way bulbs:

 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_11?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=3-way%20incandescent%20light%20bulbs&sprefix=3-way+incan%2Caps%2C200&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3A3-way%20incandescent%20light%20bulbs

 

 

It also allow you to have " high efficiency incandescents -- which are just regular incandescents that have the filament wrapped in gas"

 

 

 

[Orange]

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.

 

Next election cycle this will be touted as a brilliant job creating program.

[DoddDisciple]

Personally, I wonder if whenever looking at increased efficiencies and cost savings, the government takes into account all the equipment and supplies it's new "bureau of lightbulb management" will require.

 

A lot of these green movement things are mere kabuki theater based on what I've read and are too little, too late. For example, if we had cars that were 100% energy efficient, we would be unable to take advantage of that since there isn't enough oil worldwide to simply make the tires!

 

I don't know how true it is, but weren't incandescent bulbs made with planned obsolescence in mind? Like there are reports of some incandescent bulbs from circa WWII that still work.

 

Overall, it'll just end up costing me a little extra when they switch. I already use whatever cheap CFLs they have at Aldi's. I've bought the more expensive bulbs and the numbers just don't work if you don't use them for their entire useful life due to animals or humans destroying them. I use them for reptile lights now due to the heat production, and they are cheaper by a factor of 25-50 or so.

[beerbaron]

What I don't understand is how the metal housing on them gets so hot you are unable to touch, when they are only using 13 watts.

 

LEDs are semiconductor devices, the cooler they get the better they run and longer they will last. When designing a light bulb the team's objective is to get the heat the LED produces out as fast as possible. Since heat goes from inside to the outside very fast the outside  gets hot. Don't worry, LEDs bulbs will never become as hot as incandescent bulbs tough.

 

BeerBaron

[tyska]

What I don't understand is how the metal housing on them gets so hot you are unable to touch, when they are only using 13 watts.

 

LEDs are semiconductor devices, the cooler they get the better they run and longer they will last. When designing a light bulb the team's objective is to get the heat the LED produces out as fast as possible. Since heat goes from inside to the outside very fast the outside  gets hot. Don't worry, LEDs bulbs will never become as hot as incandescent bulbs tough.

 

BeerBaron

Thanks BB

 

I agree with SJ as far as my right to be wasteful if I chose. Nothing annoyed me more when our Gov. gave insurance discounts for certain fuel efficient vehicles. The rates should only be different if they are in less accidents or cheaper to repair. And the Hummer getting 8 mpg is actually subsidizing road repair and maintenance for the SmartCar, with gas being 40+% tax.

[Liberty]

“No tendency is quite so strong in human nature as the desire to lay down rules of conduct for other people.”  William Howard Taft

 

You also can't buy a car without a catalytic converter or run a coal plant without lots of emission controls. Horror!

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2012/06/what-pittsburgh-looked-when-it-decided-it-had-pollution-problem/2185/

 

If someone's externalities cause you harm take them to court (individual or corporate).  That is the purpose of a rule of law.  You don't need to infringe on someone's freedom.  Why not hold those companies accountable for the pollution in Pittsburgh?

 

If these light bulbs are such a great idea, why can't the exchange be voluntary?  Why is forced coercion required?

 

I hear you. It's elegant. Libertarian 101. But what you're preaching is like Efficient Market Theory. It's a nice model that looks very good on paper and works for many things (but not all), but in practice it doesn't work for a lot of environmental problems. Where it does work, I'm all for it, though.

 

It's not more private litigation that cut air, water, and ground pollution over the past few decades. Why? Probably because the people most affected are poor and the fight is terribly asymmetrical; it's easier for the rich to just move to the nice, less polluted spots than fight big corporations with bottomless pockets -- and nobody likes litigation, especially libertarians who preach what you say, ironically.

 

And also because a lot of that kind of harm is very diffuse and long-term while the benefits of ignoring environmental/social damage are very concentrated and short term. Courts are good at dealing with existing harm, but if you see harm coming over many years and/or across jurisdictions, they usually can't really deal with that -- and if you wait for the harm to have happened, it's then usually too late, species are extinct, people are dead, fetuses deformed, watersheds are poisoned, etc. So quality of life is down (just ask the Chinese), some ecosystems go in irreversible decline, it's hard to prove that certain diseases were actually caused by toxins X or toxins Y or whatever; but some people and companies make millions and so have huge incentives to hire lobbyists, acquire political connections and back people who will protect their special interests, hire lawyers to find loopholes, etc. Tragedy of the commons exists.

 

So it's kind of a prisoner's dilemma. Everybody would like their neighbors not to poison them, but nobody wants to have to change their habits to be less polluting. If you voluntarily do it, you probably won't reach critical mass and freeloaders get an advantage. The best way to get the benefits for everybody is sometimes to have an arbiter who says "Ok, let's all do this".

 

Personally, I don't think the best way is to ban specific things like the incandescent lightbulb. Instead we should set energy efficiency standards to move things forward, as can be seen with how cars progress when standards tighten and stagnate when standards also stagnate (sometimes for over a decade).

 

So I'd be more in favor or a standard that says "You have to produce X number of lumens per watt however you want, and every Y years you have to get Z% more efficient".

 

People always whine during transitions (look back at any energy efficiency transitions with cars, appliances, building codes) but a short while later people get used to it and are glad. I'm not nostalgic for the time when cars got 10 MPG on a good day and fridges and ACs used 4x more electricity to do the same thing (similar to the safety side -- I'm glad we have seatbelts and airbags, esp. because people aren't rational, even about their own safety). Soon enough LED bulbs will cost a few bucks, this controversy will be forgotten, and many terawatt-hours of electricity will be used for more productive things.

[Liberty]

I agree with SJ as far as my right to be wasteful if I chose. Nothing annoyed me more when our Gov. gave insurance discounts for certain fuel efficient vehicles. The rates should only be different if they are in less accidents or cheaper to repair. And the Hummer getting 8 mpg is actually subsidizing road repair and maintenance for the SmartCar, with gas being 40+% tax.

 

Market price signals only work when price information exists. A lot of environmental issues arise because there's no price on clear air, a benign climate, clean water, plant species X, animal species Y, untouched nature spot Z, etc. And these things are very hard to price, with the value of a lot of them only obvious when it's too late and they are gone (how much are bees worth to the agriculture industry?), or hard to put in dollars but still valuable (how much is love worth to the world?).

 

Sometimes incentives are used to encourage favorable behaviors in lieu of these prices, and that's what this is. Thousands of laws create all kinds of financial incentives (dividends vs buybacks? charitable donations? cigarette taxes? VAT that end at borders, favorizing exports, mariage and family benefits, etc), this is just one more approach. Not optimal, but it can help kickstart new desirable things, like more efficient vehicles.

 

In an ideal world, I don't think this would exist. There would be better ways to achieve this goal. But if we're talking ideal world, many things are higher on the list of things I'd like to see gone before insurance rebates for efficient vehicles. There are probably thousands of things I find much more problematic.

[Fairfaxnut]

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.

 

I think a lot of the wasted energy comes from the conversion of AC to DC.  Maybe I'm speaking generally, but the conversion for the LED bulb has some parasitic losses from the general delivery and conversion of the electricity.  Interesting reads:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents

 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/142741-tesla-turns-in-his-grave-is-it-finally-time-to-switch-from-ac-to-dc

 

 

 

[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).

 

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.

 

I think a lot of the wasted energy comes from the conversion of AC to DC.  Maybe I'm speaking generally, but the conversion for the LED bulb has some parasitic losses from the general delivery and conversion of the electricity.  Interesting reads:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents

 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/142741-tesla-turns-in-his-grave-is-it-finally-time-to-switch-from-ac-to-dc

 

Well, in the same energy act of 2007 there was also requirements for the efficiency of external power supplies. As of today all external power supplies that ship with another product have to meet Type IV energy efficiency. It's aimed at reducing the losses of AC to DC conversion.

 

You have NO IDEA how much headache this regulations has given me. These regulations have he benifit of forcing manufactuers to consider energy efficiency even tough the consumer really don't care.

 

BeerBaron

 

BeerBaron

[rmitz]

Personally, I wonder if whenever looking at increased efficiencies and cost savings, the government takes into account all the equipment and supplies it's new "bureau of lightbulb management" will require.

 

A lot of these green movement things are mere kabuki theater based on what I've read and are too little, too late. For example, if we had cars that were 100% energy efficient, we would be unable to take advantage of that since there isn't enough oil worldwide to simply make the tires!

 

That doesn't make sense.  Tires are a consumable.  Even in third-world countries you need to replace the tires eventually, and here we replace them all the time.  So that cannot be true.

 

I don't know how true it is, but weren't incandescent bulbs made with planned obsolescence in mind? Like there are reports of some incandescent bulbs from circa WWII that still work.

 

Overall, it'll just end up costing me a little extra when they switch. I already use whatever cheap CFLs they have at Aldi's. I've bought the more expensive bulbs and the numbers just don't work if you don't use them for their entire useful life due to animals or humans destroying them. I use them for reptile lights now due to the heat production, and they are cheaper by a factor of 25-50 or so.

 

Indeed, Planned Obsolescence is a big issue.  Generally speaking if people go about this by tossing old light bulbs instead of reusing them, we probably aren't saving energy, really.  I'm guessing on that.  I'm moving on to LEDs when possible because I've had issues with CFL failures long before they should have, not to mention the mercury content and such makes CFLs very dubious for the environment.