# Incandescent outlaw?



## Ashful (Dec 31, 2013)

Perhaps not the "greenest" post ever made on this forum , but I know you guys will have good info on this.

I've heard the long-delayed incandescent bulb ban goes into effect this week.  Anyone know the details?  We live in an old house artfully lit with literally hundreds of low wattage incandescents, and many antique lighting fixtures and lamps.  They all look like hell with CFL's and LEDs installed.  Do I need to go stock up?  Find a black market?


----------



## Jags (Dec 31, 2013)

If your plan is to keep using incandescents - stock up.  The 60W is gone after the first of the year.  I am sure others are to follow.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 31, 2013)

The 100Ws were gone Jan 1, 2012.  The 75Ws were gone Jan 1, 2013.  The 60 and 40W's are gone Jan 1, 2014 (actually after existing stock on shelves is sold)

For the traditional frosted edison bulbs, there are multiple sources of LED bulbs that are functionally equivalent and similar in light color and bulb appearance for $10 or less.

I know you are really asking about decorative bulbs for use in antique fixtures. I entirely expect many 'decorative' incandescent bulbs, i.e. candelabra shapes, bare filaments, etc, will be available until we are dead and gone.  I could be wrong, it has happened before. 

You might want to stock up anyways, since I am sure the price will be higher when they are 'designer' items.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 31, 2013)

A little googling has confirmed that appliance and decorative bulbs are not affected.

http://www.mysuncoast.com/news/loca...cle_2b1daa16-70dd-11e3-a4af-0019bb30f31a.html

Also learned that Phase Two in 2020 requires 45 lumens/W, which will effectively ban Halogen incandescent bulbs (which are not banned currently).


----------



## maple1 (Dec 31, 2013)

Hundreds?


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 31, 2013)

maple1 said:


> Hundreds?



Did the new mileage standards make driving 'classic cars' illegal?  Of course not.  No one is choosing to commute 100 miles a day in a Model T.

If folks want to burn incandescents or heck, gaslights, for a decorative lighting effect in a beautiful historic home, the net impact is a drop in the bucket.

IMO, 'Green' should never be about limiting freedoms, shaming, forgetting history or shivering in the dark (unless you're into that sort of thing).
Rather, it should be about carefully crafted public policy that results in giving people cost-effective, energy efficient options, and education into those options.


----------



## Slow1 (Dec 31, 2013)

I have confidence that someone out there will see the opportunity to capitalize on the need for good decorative bulbs that are LEDs.  From a tech point of view this isn't likely to be all that difficult; bringing the designs to mass market may take a bit more time/cost.  There is a market for such things - I imagine someone will likely come out with a very small platform base LED that can be fitted with different diffusers to allow flexibility of use. (and restore economy of scales to the base so that costs are brought down).  Just a matter of time.


----------



## maple1 (Dec 31, 2013)

woodgeek said:


> Did the new mileage standards make driving 'classic cars' illegal?  Of course not.  No one is choosing to commute 100 miles a day in a Model T.
> 
> If folks want to burn incandescents or heck, gaslights, for a decorative lighting effect in a beautiful historic home, the net impact is a drop in the bucket.
> 
> ...


 
Oh, I agree.

I just have a problem comprehending hundreds of lights. I couldn't begin to think where to put more than about 50 around our place.

Except at Christmas time, that is.


----------



## semipro (Dec 31, 2013)

woodgeek said:


> 'Green' should never be about limiting freedoms


I agree with the overall point of your response but disagree with this statement.
Given the freedom to do so there are many that would still be using DDT, leaded gas, ozone depleting compounds, etc.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 31, 2013)

semipro said:


> I agree with the overall point of your response but disagree with this statement.
> Given the freedom to do so there are many that would still be using DDT, leaded gas, ozone depleting compounds, etc.



Indeed.  Sometimes we just have to stop doing genuinely stupid stuff, when we learn better.  On the Energy/Carbon front, I think there are so many **negative cost**  low hanging fruit options out there that implementation is not a struggle.  In the future, there may be harder decisions.


----------



## semipro (Dec 31, 2013)

woodgeek said:


> In the future, there may be harder decisions.


Yeah, a lot harder than the choice of a light bulb.


----------



## Slow1 (Dec 31, 2013)

It really is too bad that individuals in our society are unable or unwilling to evaluate their personal decisions in the context of society as a whole.  Of course the flip side of this is the group who influence policy in such a way as to limit individual choices in the name of "better for society" when there really isn't a clear benefit (i.e. attempts to limit the size of drinks sold in NY).  Unfortunately this ends up being a political decision.

I personally happen to believe that replacing incandescent bulbs with higher efficiency LED or other technology is a good thing for society as a whole.  With increased production of these higher efficiency bulbs we should see improvements in quality, variety, and costs.  I'm not entirely sure that the outright banning of these really is the way to do it, but I believe the swap over is inevitable anyway so it is likely to simply speed things up.  There is a cost to the adoption of new technology, but I don't see anyone suffering in the dark because they can't afford to comply with this change.  

I laugh when I read about people stockpiling cases of incandescent bulbs as I imagine they are spending as much as it may cost to swap over to LED's etc (assuming they swap out as their current bulbs fail) and may prefer the new tech in a few years anyway leaving them with a pile of unwanted bulbs.


----------



## midwestcoast (Dec 31, 2013)

Woodgeek & Slow1 have it. 
The bulbs you're talking about won't be phased out any time soon. I wouldn't bother hoarding bulbs. 
Long before the EPA looks at the minor impact of these bulbs, LED (or some other tech) will have advanced to the point where the issue is moot.   After all the 
"regular" bulbs are replaced, the decorative bulbs will be the remaining growth market & research dollars will move there. That's what my 8 ball says anyway...


----------



## semipro (Dec 31, 2013)

Slow1 said:


> I laugh when I read about people stockpiling cases of incandescent bulbs as I imagine they are spending as much as it may cost to swap over to LED's


I find this humorous also as stated in a somewhat parallel post here regarding energy savings. 
We're not laughing at you though Joful,


----------



## midwestcoast (Dec 31, 2013)

Just to clarify, Incandescents were not and are not banned or outlawed.  EPA set an efficiency standard that is being phased in. Basically it says bulbs (40-100 watts) must be at least 25% more efficient at turning electricity into light.


----------



## Slow1 (Dec 31, 2013)

There will be losers to be sure.  When we did our addition I had high efficiency florescent fixtures installed in our family room.  They were great - much better than incandescent for efficiency etc.  However, after 4 years one of them wigged out. The ballast started to fail and I discovered that they were rather specific to that unit.  While I could purchase a compatible replacement it was more expensive than a new fixture.  In the end I replaced all three of these lights with more standard units (designed to hold 3 'normal' bulbs) and installed with LED bulbs in place.  Now they burn even less power and put out better light.  If I could go back and re-plan that series of events I'd have stuck with conventional fixtures as I certainly lost out in having to swap after about 4-5 years.  I'm sure this sort of thing will happen as we move forward, but it is part of the market finding balance eh?


----------



## maple1 (Dec 31, 2013)

Slow1 said:


> I personally happen to believe that replacing incandescent bulbs with higher efficiency LED or other technology is a good thing for society as a whole.


 
I have a serious issue with this lightbulb thing.

How good is it for society as a whole to legislate use of bulbs with mercury in them? How CFLs got the 'green light' in the face of that little item is a bit beyond my comprehension.

I also have issues with other 'green' things that really aren't very green at all, but I'll stop there.


----------



## Slow1 (Dec 31, 2013)

midwestcoast said:


> Just to clarify, Incandescents were not and are not banned or outlawed.  EPA set an efficiency standard that is being phased in. Basically it says bulbs (40-100 watts) must be at least 25% more efficient at turning electricity into light.



Technically true, but how does one get this improvement with incandescent technology?  If this isn't possible then it is effectively a ban on the tech.


----------



## Slow1 (Dec 31, 2013)

maple1 said:


> I have a serious issue with this lightbulb thing.
> 
> How good is it for society as a whole to legislate use of bulbs with mercury in them? How CFLs got the 'green light' in the face of that little item is a bit beyond my comprehension.
> 
> I also have issues with other 'green' things that really aren't very green at all, but I'll stop there.



I have to agree with the mercury concern.  I'm hoping that LEDs don't have this issue although I'm sure they will present new ones of their own.  Nothing seems to come without a cost eh?

In the end a choice may have to be made to choose the lesser of two evils; question is who gets to make that choice?  Individual consumers or legislatures (who presumable represent the will of the people as a whole).


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 31, 2013)

Slow1 said:


> Technically true, but how does one get this improvement with incandescent technology?  If this isn't possible then it is effectively a ban on the tech.



The number chosen was designed to allow halogen incandescents to pass during phase 1.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 31, 2013)

Slow1 said:


> I personally happen to believe that replacing incandescent bulbs with higher efficiency LED or other technology is a good thing for society as a whole.  With increased production of these higher efficiency bulbs we should see improvements in quality, variety, and costs.  I'm not entirely sure that the outright banning of these really is the way to do it, but I believe the swap over is inevitable anyway so it is likely to simply speed things up.  There is a cost to the adoption of new technology, but I don't see anyone suffering in the dark because they can't afford to comply with this change.



Recall that these LED bulb products did not exist when the law was passed in 2007. Without the 'bans' in the US and overseas, the amount of R&D spending would have been a lot lower, and we likely would not have the products that we have today.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 31, 2013)

maple1 said:


> How good is it for society as a whole to legislate use of bulbs with mercury in them? How CFLs got the 'green light' in the face of that little item is a bit beyond my comprehension.



I went all-CFL in 2000.  I have no concerns about the mercury in them at all.  I'm no chemist, but if I broke a bulb the mg's of metallic mercury vapor would vent to the atmosphere.  How much would I actually breathe in?  Of course it doesn't disappear when its out in the environment, but at that point we can still argue that the energy savings from the CFL reduces the 100 tons of mercury released every year in the environment from coal combustion by a far larger amount.

And in 13 years, I have broken 2 and recycled about 40 bulbs.


----------



## Pruning@trunk (Dec 31, 2013)

Just another example how environmentalists limit of freedoms and reach in our pocket books in order to save Mother Earth. So instead of paying .50 cents for a bulb I will have to pay $10 for a bulb.  This is progress!

If I want to be energy efficient I will just turn off my lights, I don't néed congress to help me with this.

You people are just busy-bodies!


----------



## semipro (Dec 31, 2013)

maple1 said:


> I have a serious issue with this lightbulb thing.
> 
> How good is it for society as a whole to legislate use of bulbs with mercury in them? How CFLs got the 'green light' in the face of that little item is a bit beyond my comprehension.
> 
> I also have issues with other 'green' things that really aren't very green at all, but I'll stop there.



In the case of fluorescent bulbs the overall release of mercury to the environment is reduced with their use because so much of our electricity comes from coal burning. 
Life cycle cost/benefits should always be considered when determining how "green" something is.  
Unlike CFLs some well-intentioned "improvements" turn out to be boondoggles instead.  MTBE in gasoline and the production of ethanol from corn come to mind.


----------



## Slow1 (Dec 31, 2013)

Pruning@trunk said:


> Just another example how environmentalists limit of freedoms and reach in our pocket books in order to save Mother Earth. So instead of paying .50 cents for a bulb I will have to pay $10 for a bulb.  This is progress!
> 
> If I want to be energy efficient I will just turn off my lights, I don't néed congress to help me with this.



The financial argument is interesting - if you consider the cost of the energy being saved during the lifetime of the replacement bulb it will more than make up for the $9.50 differential in initial cost.  Unfortunately few folks look at total lifecycle cost when making purchase decisions.  The other side of this is that the cost of our energy goes beyond how much we each pay - the infrastructure etc has a cost associated with it.  Even without any "green" arguments involved, it simply makes sense for the community as a whole to not build out more generation and distribution infrastructure if we can slow or reduce our demand instead.  Total lifetime cost of this new investment is likely to be high and drive energy prices ever higher, which then affects all individuals.

Does our "congress" know better than individuals? Doubtful,  but in this area it seems a strong argument can be made that it is in fact in the best interests of both individuals and society as a whole to improve and adopt this technology.


----------



## Highbeam (Dec 31, 2013)

I love the heat and quality of light from a clear incandescent 60 watt bulb in my desk lamp at work. The only place I use any incandescent bulbs in my home is in the oven and fridge and that's only because they came that way. I went all CFL a decade ago and now I am about 50% into LED. The LEDs are really very good. None of my thrills are being hampered by LED vs. incandescent. In fact, I get quite a thrill out of lighting my kitchen to blinding levels on 60 watts.

Still, I like my hot desk lamp. 

Don't worry about CFLs, they are now an obsolete technology. Never were any good and will be the joke of history. Slow to warm up, short lifespan, stupid looking, and that mercury thing. LED is where it's at. That is, until the next best thing comes along.


----------



## semipro (Dec 31, 2013)

Pruning@trunk said:


> Just another example how environmentalists limit of freedoms and reach in our pocket books in order to save Mother Earth.


George Bush an environmentalist?


----------



## midwestcoast (Dec 31, 2013)

maple1 said:


> I have a serious issue with this lightbulb thing.
> 
> How good is it for society as a whole to legislate use of bulbs with mercury in them? How CFLs got the 'green light' in the face of that little item is a bit beyond my comprehension.
> 
> I also have issues with other 'green' things that really aren't very green at all, but I'll stop there.


First, the use of CFLs has not been legislated.
I agree it's not ideal to have mercury vapor in a consumer item. Especially something that can easily break & release it. The majority of these bulbs will not be "disposed of properly" by consumers. They'll go in the trash, get crushed & release some mercury.  Unless the bulb is new though, most of the mercury will already be fused to the inside of the glass. 
With the current energy sources in the U.S., and unless the bulb dies an early death, it will have more than offset the mercury it contains from increased efficiency & reduced burning of coal.  Sorry, can't paste the tables here due to formatting:

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf


----------



## seige101 (Dec 31, 2013)

maple1 said:


> I have a serious issue with this lightbulb thing.
> 
> How good is it for society as a whole to legislate use of bulbs with mercury in them? How CFLs got the 'green light' in the face of that little item is a bit beyond my comprehension.
> 
> I also have issues with other 'green' things that really aren't very green at all, but I'll stop there.



The amount of mercury in a CFL lamp is negligible compared to the coal fired plant belching it out. More conservation = less coal fired plants = less mercury into the environment.


----------



## midwestcoast (Dec 31, 2013)

Highbeam said:


> ...
> Don't worry about CFLs, they are now an obsolete technology. Never were any good and will be the joke of history. Slow to warm up, short lifespan, stupid looking, and that mercury thing. LED is where it's at. That is, until the next best thing comes along.


Mostly agree. They are nearly obsolete. LED prices are dropping FAST and the light quality is improving just as fast. 
 I have some CFLs that are very good though. Really nice light in lamps, not too slow to warm-up, have lasted 10 plus years.  I've had others that were the opposite in all qualities.  And they all suck for outdoor use, appliance use & anywhere you just need a quick on-off.


----------



## semipro (Dec 31, 2013)

midwestcoast said:


> Mostly agree. They are nearly obsolete. LED prices are dropping FAST and the light quality is improving just as fast.
> I have some CFLs that are very good though. Really nice light in lamps, not too slow to warm-up, have lasted 10 plus years.  I've had others that were the opposite in all qualities.  And they all suck for outdoor use, appliance use & anywhere you just need a quick on-off.


Mostly agree.  The later generation CFLs are quite good. 
Their "soft start" functionality in the cold actually works well for our outside spots and our situation.  I flip them on when heading to the woodshed or vehicle and they gradually ramp up in brightness.  Going from full dark to full brightness is not easy on the eyes.


----------



## jatoxico (Dec 31, 2013)

Just as point of information, all fluorescents contain mercury. So all the linear bulbs used in offices, hospitals, schools and on and on contain mercury as do the older circular and u-shaped bulbs that have been common in households for many years and always have. "Metallic" mercury (like in a thermometer) is not particularly toxic, even if swallowed (not recommended  anyway). The vapor from from broken bulbs has the potential to be but exposure is considered safe if it occurs in an adequately ventilated space.

Bulbs should of course be treated safely like batteries and other potential chemical exposure sources found in the home/work.


----------



## Pruning@trunk (Dec 31, 2013)

^^^ disagree with "slow1". If these LED bulbs are so good and they will be a money saver then they will sell themselves and one doesn't have to make laws to ban the other bulbs.

Oh wait, why would GE get into bed with the gov't? Oh that's right, they can make more money off the $10 bulbs than the .50 bulbs and then claim to hide behind saving the earth and being green and more efficiency, blah, blah, blah.  Not sure why you people can't see this. It happens time and time again.


----------



## semipro (Dec 31, 2013)

jatoxico said:


> Just as point of information, all fluorescents contain mercury. So all the linear bulbs used in offices, hospitals, schools and on and on contain mercury as do the older circular and u-shaped bulbs that have been common in households for many years and always have. "Metallic" mercury (like in a thermometer) is not particularly toxic, even if swallowed (not recommended  anyway). The vapor from from broken bulbs has the potential to be but exposure is considered safe if it occurs in an adequately ventilated space.
> 
> Bulbs should of course be treated safely like batteries and other potential chemical exposure sources found in the home/work.


jatoxico must mean "toxicologist" then 
So, does the mercury released from coal power plants pose a greater risk? 
I'm guessing the mercury is bound to particulate matter that exits the stacks and is then potentially inhaled as the pathway?


----------



## Pruning@trunk (Dec 31, 2013)

semipro said:


> George Bush an environmentalist?


Who said I liked George Bush?  Unlike you, I call a spade a spade and don't always support the party I vote for.


----------



## semipro (Dec 31, 2013)

Pruning@trunk said:


> Would said I liked George Bush?  Unlike you, I call a spade a spade and don't always support the party I vote for.


Exactly.  Who said you liked George Bush?  I didn't.  It wasn't even inferred. 
My point is that it was not an "environmentalist" initiative as you stated but more an economic one.


----------



## midwestcoast (Dec 31, 2013)

semipro said:


> So, does the mercury released from coal power plants pose a greater risk?
> I'm guessing the mercury is bound to particulate matter that exits the stacks and is then potentially inhaled as the pathway?


There's a big difference between a single event exposure from a broken bulb and a chronic exposure from the environment.  
I think there are several forms that are emitted, but the biggest problem with mercury exposure is that it transforms to methyl-mercury (i think that's the form anyway) after release and that bio-accumulates up food chains to us (mostly in fish & shellfish) in concentrations that can be harmful.


----------



## Slow1 (Dec 31, 2013)

Pruning@trunk said:


> ^^^ disagree with "slow1". If these LED bulbs are so good and they will be a money saver then they will sell themselves and one doesn't have to make laws to ban the other bulbs.



Fair point.  I attribute this to the failure of most consumers to consider full life cycle cost of the purchase.  I believe that if this were the case we wouldn't need the legislation to push this.  However there is a secondary benefit to the legislation in that it 'forces' the development/adoption cycle and thereby jump-starts the economies of scale that can bring down the cost of those $10 bulbs, thus an over-all benefit to all.

I'm not going to sit here and take the position that those with economic interests are un-involved in these rules/laws; on the contrary I believe that they are in general over-involved.  However in this case I happen to agree with this one.  Goodness knows I disagree with plenty of others.   My agreement/disagreement with one rule doesn't (in my opinion) obligate me to take the same position on all other legislation.


----------



## jatoxico (Dec 31, 2013)

semipro said:


> jatoxico must mean "toxicologist" then
> So, does the mercury released from coal power plants pose a greater risk then?
> I'm guessing the mercury is bound to particulate matter that exits the stacks and is then potentially inhaled as the pathway?


 

Mercury, including liquid mercury can and does vaporize all by itself. Swallowed metallic mercury is not well absorbed into the blood (absorption of liq mercury is related to amount of vapororization) but vaporized mercury is different and inhaled mercury represents the major source of exposure and concern. Organic mercury (e.g methyl mercury) is highly toxic and readily absorbed through skin, membranes and what have you. Methyl mercury is the stuff that enters the food chain.

Regarding coal burning, I took a quick look and according to what I was able to quickly find, the major source of mercury in the atmosphere is due to the natural vaporization of mercury present in the earth's crust but human activities (of all types) is believed to contribute roughly the same amount as that from natural processes (so not insignificant) though it is a difficult thing to assess.


----------



## Pruning@trunk (Dec 31, 2013)

^^^semipro. That is my point as well. These politicians or people who what to change policy and push the so called "environmental cause" is doing it not for environmental reasons but  for economic gain.  Example al gore and carbon credits or the farmers with ethanol or GE with light bulbs, or GM b/c of the volt or Wall Street b/c of easy money....need I keep going? They want economy gain for themselves at the expense of the people and hide behind false premises.

But the problem continues b/c the greenies over-look the way the money is being made because  it is a step in what they think is the "right direction" that is namely, to save the planet and they are all for it because it is a religion for them.


----------



## pen (Dec 31, 2013)

It's New Year's Eve.

Pour a drink and relax all.

Thread closed.

pen


----------



## begreen (Dec 31, 2013)

Time out for the political opinions or this is heading straight for the can.

Looks like Pen beat me to it, though 10:40am is a little early for a drink.


----------



## webbie (Dec 31, 2013)

Pruning@trunk said:


> ^^^ disagree with "slow1". If these LED bulbs are so good and they will be a money saver then they will sell themselves and one doesn't have to make laws to ban the other bulbs.
> 
> Oh wait, why would GE get into bed with the gov't? Oh that's right, they can make more money off the $10 bulbs than the .50 bulbs and then claim to hide behind saving the earth and being green and more efficiency, blah, blah, blah.  Not sure why you people can't see this. It happens time and time again.



Yeah, it happened when the cars replaced horses and the car lobbyists persuaded government to build and subsidize roads. It does happen all the time.

The difference in world views between you and others, it appears, is that you somehow equate "freedom" with the ability to pollute more, use more energy and in general distain progress. There have always been people who fail to look forward and lament the good ole days when soot covered everything and more people died from respiratory diseases.

In my book, the "freedom" to remain cancer free, to dig up less of God's Green Earth and to use as few resources as possible trumps the "freedom" of pollution.....even if it keeps a few less shekels in my pocket in the short run.

Example - the big big bad gubment keeps making more strict building codes in MA. This is against my freedoms. But when I get a $150 gas bill at this time of year for heating a house, cooking, drying laundry AND the fireplace, I blow a kiss to Regulation...

The entire purpose of regulation and government (in this sense) is to take a science and economic based approach which, in the long term, contributes to the general welfare and health/happiness of the people. A cheap light bulb doesn't seem as cheap when the incidence of childhood asthma hits record levels (as it has done now as a result of coal burning, etc.).

Is freedom to the freedom to make other people's children choke? Think about that over the New Year. Don't answer now.
(my grand daughter uses an inhaler - at 4 years old - because of a nearby coal plant largely).


----------

