Congress Voting To Repeal Incandescent Bulb Ban 990
Bob the Super Hamste writes "CNN Money is running as story about a bill Congress is going to vote on today to repeal the 'incandescent light bulb ban' that was put into place during the Bush administration. The bill is supported by Republicans in Congress who are claiming this places unnecessary restrictions on the market. For those of you wondering, it does bring up the standard issues of energy efficiency, mercury (in both the bulbs and that emitted by coal power), and cost of the bulbs. The bill was introduced by Texas Congressman Joe Barton."
Classic! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is as close to a modern version of "fiddling while Rome burns."
Glad to see they're not wasting their time on silly things like the budget.
Re:Classic! (Score:5, Funny)
The congressman isn't wasting time, his constituency includes the factory where the Easy Bake Oven is made, and with the end of the 100W incandescent they'll lose tens of jobs!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Wow...another reason to like this guy.
Heck..if he puts a bill forth to end prohibition...and other intrusions of the US Federal govt into our private lives and activities....I'm all for this guy!!
Re:Classic! (Score:5, Informative)
He's also the guy who apologized to BP for all the heat they were taking in the Gulf last year. Showing that he's no friend of rights; rather just a big business shill.
Re: (Score:3)
Prohibition was actually recently repealed, did you not hear the good news?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeal_of_Prohibition [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Silly. It wasn't repealed. It just went dormant for a while and then came back with a new set of values plugged into the @forbidden_substance list.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Where I live, the heat output is a specific negative for 11 months of the year. Only place in the house I still consider run-of-the-mill incandescents to be right are the bathrooms, where the light produced by them seems less harsh than other means.
And, of course, in my lava lamp.
I want LED bulbs to come down in cost. I have several candelabra base lamps, indoors and out, that wouldn't look good with a CFL spiral. An LED bulb can look like an actual candle. Only problem, I'm not putting $40 apiece bulbs
Re: (Score:3)
It's funny, because in Texas, for three-quarters of the year, where the statesman is representing, you not only have to pay for electricity to create that heat/light, but you have to pay 33% of that again for an AC unit to pump it back out of your house. If it's over 100F it's something like 50%.
Re:Classic! (Score:5, Informative)
Or, you could not be an idiot, and realize that incandescents were not banned. There was an efficiency standard put into place. There are many incandescents that do meet that standard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Being an idiot is a Texan's God-given right.
This legislation has nothing to do with lightbulbs. It's all about political theatrics and whipping the dumbest of voters into an anti-Democratic frenzy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Idiotic" would be thinking that playing with semantics actually shows us that incandescents aren't actually, yes, effectively banned. An "efficiency standard" is a great euphemism though for a ban.
Re:Classic! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not really true.
Name brand, expensive, modern "instant on" CFL's still produce dismal light for the first few seconds and then take up to a minute to achieve full brightness. I restrict them to locations where the lights will be on for many hours per day. I do not like using them in rooms I will go into, turn the light on for a few minutes and then leave.
LED's are much closer. I have a good GE bulb with fins with good color and light pattern BUT it's only 40 watts. I have a good Sylvania bulb with good
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"Seriously. Incandescent, aside from being What You're Used To, really is NOT very good light!"
That's actually WRONG. Let's see, first, tungsten has a few nice higher emission peaks around the green and yellow, which is what your eyes are most sensitive to. Next, incandescents have great IR output and 630nm/660nm output (again due to tungsten) despite their inefficiency, which makes them suitable as supplementary lighting for horticulture.
These lights also work very well in colder climates where CFL and som
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Classic! (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't the guy fiddling while Rome burns. This is one of Nero's dedicated foot soldiers actively setting the fires on command. Except that there are multiple Neros, and it's not Rome, it's the world that's being set on fire.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't the guy fiddling while Rome burns. This is one of Nero's dedicated foot soldiers actively setting the fires on command. Except that there are multiple Neros, and it's not Rome, it's the world that's being set on fire.
Excellent! We won't need light bulbs at all then!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Classic! (Score:4, Insightful)
Ironic, considering every CFL uses vaporized mercury as its filament.
Re:Classic! (Score:4, Informative)
...and REDUCES the amount of overall mercury in the environment, due to mercury not being released by coal power plants.
Re: (Score:3)
Because of the dollar amounts involved, for SS to be an investment requires the federal government to end up owning a significant voting stake in most every major company. That right there should give you pause for thought.
If you let the people invest the money as they wish, the general population would end up owning a significant voting stake in most every major company. That right there should give you pause for thought.
Why should the government be in charge of my retirement?
Good thing for you (Score:3)
CFL are no savings (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:CFL are no savings (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike old style bulbs, CFLs are complex enough that quality matters. The ultra-cheap ones are really crap.
Re:CFL are no savings (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Every bulb in my house has been CFL for a while and I've never even _heard_ of them failing until now. I generally buy GE, and they've always been great for me....
Haven't noticed any problems with the ceiling fan dimmer that's now using CFL bulbs either. Dims a bit faster I guess, but nothing more than that...
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with the parent that quality control is a problem with all new CFLs, and disagree that it is merely a matter of household electrical quality. I made the switch to CFLs throughout most of my apartment way back in 2002. I did it because my overhead lighting sockets were inconvenient to replace, and I was replacing incandescents on average one every 2 months. I bought some Phillips (or Sylvania? I don't remember) 32-watt bulbs that emitted the lighting equivalent of 120-watt incandescents. They wer
Re:CFL are no savings (Score:4, Informative)
Check my manufacturer? Reputable ones? Replacement guarantees? Complex ones?
Disposal guidelines? Mercury? Ballast? Warm-up? Flicker?
We are talking about light bulbs. I understand that CFLs are more energy-efficient than incandescents of comparable lumens. But they are a poor replacement in every other way. We are asking the world to waste more personal energy using CFLs than they waste on electrical energy using incandescents.
Re:CFL are no savings (Score:5, Informative)
your poor planning (Score:3)
Re:CFL are no savings (Score:4, Informative)
I'm in the same boat ... given the massive increase in cost, and the claims for bulb life ... even one or two failures basically means you've wiped out any savings for the next decade or so. Which means as soon as they start dying anywhere less than the claimed lifespan, you start replacing with old school bulbs.
They might think it, but I seriously doubt people are doing it.
I'm definitely not impressed so far with actual bulb life vs claimed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
given the massive increase in cost, and the claims for bulb life ... even one or two failures basically means you've wiped out any savings for the next decade or so.
Complete and utter BS. A CFL runs less than $1.50 each in 4 packs at Home Depot. A regular incandescent is about 10 cents each I suppose. So that's a difference of $1.40, so let's see what it takes to make that up.
If you replace a 100w bulb with a CFL, you save approx 75 watts. That means that bulb consumes 0.075kwh per hour, or 0.00125kwh per minute. At a rate of 12 cents per kwh (pretty typical...not to many places are much lower, but some are quite a bit higher), that means switching to a CFL saves you a
Re:CFL are no savings (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe where you live that's true ... and I wish that were true because they would be more cost effective. Up here in Canada, the last time I bought a 4 pack of CFLs, it cost $10, and that was on sale of 50% off ... I'm looking on a web site for a local retailer, and two pack is $10. That's a $5 lightbulb, and I've seen them for as much as $10 each, and some as much as $15.
I've bought dim-able CFLs, and had them fail within days if not hours, so I've stopped buying them. And I'm not talking off brands, I'm talking major the companies. In my experience, the dim-able ones are complete crap. I'm not prepared to rewire my 7 year old home to put in dimmers to accommodate these things.
Now, some of the other ones I've had that have burned out have been in places where the bulbs actually see a fair amount of hours of usage, so they may have legitimately reached EOL. But some of them haven't lasted nearly as long as I'd hoped.
But, please, unless you've personally bought me some CFLs and actually paid my electric bill, please don't act like you actually know what my experiences with them have been. Because my experience has been that they cost a hell of a lot more, and so far haven't seemed to last any longer than incandescent.
I'd prefer to use them, I'm just not convinced that based on the failure rate I'm seeing, they actually save me any money in the long run. Because I pay a crap load more for them than you apparently do.
Re:CFL are no savings (Score:4, Insightful)
In a lot of places, there are no savings whatsoever. CFLs take orders of magnitude more energy to manufacture, which are supposed to be offset by lesser efficiency of incadescents. Except, every bit of energy that is "wasted" in your house lowers your heating bill by just that much. Unless you live in a hot region where air conditioning is needed, this is either a win or neutral. Very few businesses and even fewer private houses use indoor lighting during day (at least around my parts), and during summer... right, neither light nor heating are needed. Thus, incadescent light bulbs end up with almost no waste.
Which cannot be said about manufacture and disposal of CFLs.
Unnatural colour of CFL light being harsher on your eyes is another story...
Re:CFL are no savings - bzzt wrong... (Score:5, Informative)
Something else is all the people complaining about the cost of CFL bulbs. Even with failures, the electricity savings by using CFLs is huge. I have those light bars in my bathrooms that could either be 360 watts of incandescent lamps or, with CFLs, just 90 watts for more light output. I use CFLs everywhere that I can. The only exceptions are the oven, refrigerator, and the ceiling fans that have candelabra base bulbs and maybe those are available as CFL now.
There was a very easily noticed drop in my electric bill when I switched over - especially in the summer due to the reduced heat load for the air conditioning.
It all adds up, folks. The electric savings due to using CFL lamps is huge. That's a hell of a lot of coal and natural gas that isn't being burned and it cuts the need for nuclear.
There is a bigger picture than just that you had to pay a buck or two for a CFL instead of 50 cents for an incandescent.
Re: (Score:3)
Resistive electric heating is generally less efficient than a heat pump, and much less efficient than gas heating.
Re:CFL are no savings (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny, I've used dozens of them in my home since they became available, and I've had a sum total of ZERO fail to date. ...But I didn't buy "Discount Bob" brand light-bulbs, either.
With CFLs, the quality is at the top-end. The low-end bulbs are garbage, and not worth using even if they're free.
Buy better CFLs (Score:5, Insightful)
The ones in my house are all around 4 years old, still going strong. That is half the reason I buy them. Replacing bulbs is a pain, I like not having to do it very often.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Where I live there is only a single location in the entire city to dispose of CFL bulbs, open 8-5 on weekdays, 3 hours on Saturday. You can't say with a straight face that more than a handful of people actually bother with that.
I think having clean power signals has a lot to do with CFL lifespan. In my old apartment I replaced 5 in a year from 2 sockets. Since I have moved into my house I haven't replaced a single one in 3 years in a half-dozen sockets. Same brand(s) in both places.
Re: (Score:3)
even if the 33 coal plants produce more mercury than the CFL's disposed of in local landfills.. it is a hell of a lot easier to clean/process up 33 sites of high volume than all local landfills with low volume..
if they are arguing that closing the 33 plants with reduced power from CFL's in homes will reduce the amount of mercury expelled then they are not addressing the problem.
Requiring the coal plant to filter the exhaust and remove the mercury would stop it completely and NOT transfer it to local landfil
Re:CFL are no savings (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there's your problem right there. Why should someone have to 'shop around' for a fscking light bulb?? I've never in the past had to shop for quality in a light bulb (with incandescent)...I just grab the first one I see on the shelf...usually looking just long enough to see if there is a cheapest one.
Why would Joe Consumer even consider that a light bulb isn't a light bulb isn't a light bulb....this is a commodity purchase...this isn't something people are used to having to research...it's a fucking light bulb.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's called living in a free market society. There was a time in China when you could only buy one kind of bicycle, and you didn't have to shop around at all. Workers' paradise, right?
Plus, there's this new thing called the Internet, which can be used to find the best deal/bulb/widget/pron to suit your needs.
Re: (Score:3)
Dang (Score:2)
I figure there's a pretty good load of money to be made by stockpiling these things and selling them to desperate homeowners in a few years once they're scarce. Anyone who's already started stockpiling may be in for a scare...
There was a ban? (Score:2)
Nope, not nuts. [homedepot.com].
If there was a ban on these things, it doesn't appear to be working.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only is it not a ban, it doesn't go into effect until 2012 and doesn't reach full force until 2020.
Re: (Score:3)
THEY WEREN'T BANNED.
An efficiency standard was set. Any bulb, using any technology, that meets this standard is fine. There are several incandescents that also meet the standard.
Re:There was a ban? (Score:4, Informative)
Starting in 2012, standars would slowly keep increasing until reaching the peak in 2020. So, that means that none should have yet disappeared, and depending on their caracteristics some of them could still be sold for a while. Anyway, that was all in TFA, but this is slashdot, so, that was expected :)
There is no bulb ban! (Score:5, Informative)
There never was! There are new efficiency standards, which both GE and Osram Sylvania say they can meet with new incandescents. The whole thing started as a talking point for a Republican primary, and took off when the punditry caught a whiff of it and smelled red meat.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There never was! There are new efficiency standards, which both GE and Osram Sylvania say they can meet with new incandescents. The whole thing started as a talking point for a Republican primary, and took off when the punditry caught a whiff of it and smelled red meat.
It may not be a ban de jure but it is a ban de facto.
Playing with semantics is what politicians do to fool the ignorant into being ruled. See The Prince, 1984, etc.
Ban is not the answer (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, you have an option these days (Score:5, Insightful)
Not CFLs, you are right those dim for shit, but Philips has new LED lights that are actually worth getting. What you are after is the Philips AmbientLED Dimmable A19. As far as I know, it is exclusive to Home Depot currently, but they all have them. It is a real, no shit, replacement for an A19 bulb. Its luminous efficacy is equal to or above CFLs (which isn't true for many LEDs), it dims properly using a normal dimmer, and it fits in normal sockets. Funny looking bulb, but it does the job and it is white when it lights up.
The downside is, of course, upfront cost. They are expensive little things. However being LEDs they ought to last a decade or two which combined with low energy usage means they are likely to be a net win.
I got them for my living room because I was really tired of having to get out the ladder to change bulbs, and because dimmable CFLs are crap. I'd been stuck on incandescents but tried these. They work great. I just have a standard Lutron dimmer and all I had to do was put the bulbs in the sockets and it works right.
Now I'm not advocating an incandescent ban or anything, I am making you aware of a new, high tech, option you've got. I love the things, despite the cost, because they work well and I don't have to replace them all the time. Plus they look neat :).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What you are after is the Philips AmbientLED Dimmable A19
$40-$45 a bulb!? Serioiusly!? I would dearly love to get rid of my 2 remaining incandescent 100W globes, but I am not paying $50 a globe. That is insane! Regardless of the warranty (which no doubt is a hassle to claim). Not to mention they only replace 60W incandescent bulbs and the lighting is weak enough in my study and bedroom without making it even weaker. So they're not a good replacement for anything as far as my needs are concerned.
I think long term LED is the way to go. The dimming issue probably do
Re: (Score:3)
"Its luminous efficacy is equal to or above CFLs (which isn't true for many LEDs)"
This isn't true and hasn't been for a few years. Cree smashed 100 lux/w for usable human lighting years ago, and just recently they popped past 220 lux/w.
Most typical LEDs from Cree, Epistar, Edison, Nichia, Seoul Semiconductor, etc. that are out now offer 110-130 lux/w, with fluorescent's PEAK being near 95 lux/w in the most efficient fluorescent lamp type, the T5HO.
LED has become a direct replacement for HID.
Then tax electricity, not the bulbs (Score:3)
ban ALL lightbulbs (Score:4, Funny)
Dangerous mercury vapor does not belong near kids (Score:4, Interesting)
After much research, I discovered that a CFL has about 4 milligrams of Mercury that is released as a vapor (which is readily absorbed by the body unlike the solid form).
The EPA website's cleanup instructions were vast. They even recommended that all clothing that came in contact with any of the CFL be destroyed. I assumed this also meant the wall-to-wall carpeting in my son's bedroom where he plays.
Do I think the EPA is probably being a bit paranoid? Sure. But this is my son we are talking about during his key mental development years. A little paranoia is in order. Who knows how much mercury vapor he inhaled. Yes, I got rid of the carpet.
I'm personally stocking up on incadescents until LED or Halogon alternatives become viable. BTW-- I vote Democratic ticket and am otherwise pretty liberal.
Re:Dangerous mercury vapor does not belong near ki (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, I got rid of the carpet.
i hope you checked all the ingredients in the new carpet against chances of causing developmental problems..
i also hope if you where that paranoid that you properly disposed of this now contaminated carpet - rather than throw it in the trash to go to a land fill to allow it to enter the water table where your son will now drink it from the faucet.
and if you are that worried - you might want to avoid fish all together..
Cleaning Up a Broken CFL (Score:3)
The EPA website's cleanup instructions were vast.
Cleaning Up a Broken CFL
When a fluorescent bulb breaks in your home, some of this mercury is released as mercury vapor.
These steps are precautions and reflect best practices for cleaning up a broken CFL. If you are unable to follow them fully, don't be alarmed. CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury -- less than 1/100th of the amount in a mercury thermometer. However, if you are concerned about the risk to your health from a potential exposure to mercury, consult your physician.
Before cleanup
Have people and pets leave the room.
Air out the room for 5-10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment.
Shut off the central forced air heating/air-conditioning system, if you have one.
Collect materials needed to clean up broken bulb:
stiff paper or cardboard;
sticky tape;
damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes (for hard surfaces); and
a glass jar with a metal lid or a sealable plastic bag.
During cleanup
Be thorough in collecting broken glass and visible powder.
Place cleanup materials in a sealable container.
After cleanup
Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of properly.
Avoid leaving any bulb fragments or cleanup materials indoors.
If practical, continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the heating/air conditioning system shut off for several hours.
Cleaning Up a Broken CFL [epa.gov]
Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rugs: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming
1.The next several times you vacuum the rug or carpet, shut off the H&AC system if you have one, close the doors to other rooms, and open a window or door to the outside before vacuuming. Change the vacuum bag after each use in this area.
2.After vacuuming is completed, keep the H&AC system shut off and the window or door to the outside open, as practical, for several hours.
Detailed Recommendations [epa.gov]
These clean-up recommendations are more or less what you expect for any accidental toxic spill in the home.
Actions You Can Take to Prevent Broken Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs
Always switch off and allow a working CFL bulb to cool before handling.
Always handle CFL bulbs carefully to avoid breakage.
If possible, screw/unscrew the CFL by holding the plastic or ceramic base, not the glass tubing.
Gently screw in the CFL until snug. Do not over-tighten.
Never forcefully twist the glass tubing.
Do not install CFLs in table lamps and floor lamps that can be easily knocked over, in unprotected light fixtures, or in lamps that are incompatible with the spiral or folded shape of many CFLs.
Do not use CFL bulbs in locations where they can easily be broken, such as play spaces.
Use CFL bulbs that have a glass or plastic cover over the spiral or folded glass tube, if available. These types of bulbs look more like incandescent bulbs and may be more durable if dropped.
Consider using a drop cloth (e.g., plastic sheet or beach towel) when changing a fluorescent light bulb in case a breakage should occur. The drop cloth will help prevent mercury contamination of nearby surfaces and can be bundled with the bulb debris for disposal.
Wrong summary (Score:3, Insightful)
More Teabagger bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no incandescent light bulb ban.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How about scrapping everything and starting over?
Re:Summary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It really doesn't matter, though. If there were value in being more efficient, bulbs would be more efficient. For commercial lighting, they use enough power to make it worth going fluorescent, and most of them went that way twenty years ago or more. For household lighting, they use such a small amount of power that the market doesn't demand more efficient lighting, and most consumers haven't really shown much interest in completely replacing their incandescent bulbs with CFLs in spite of the energy savin
Re:Summary? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there were value in being more efficient, bulbs would be more efficient.
Explain, then, junk food. Or those crappy off-brand cigarette lighters that break before they use all their fuel.
Of all your things to put your faith in, the prescience of the American consumer seems to me to a poor choice.
Re: (Score:3)
You're confusing instantaneous efficiency with lifetime efficiency, and confusing infrared emissions with envelope temperature. Not all infrared emissions from an incandescent bulb are turned into surface heat on the bulb's envelope.
First, it's important to understand that a halogen bulb is more efficient over its life because filament redeposition ensures that the filament does not get thinner (and thus less effective at producing light) and that the inside of the bulb remains clear of deposits from the f
Re:Summary? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, yes, if you want to get flame-y, it IS the government's job to mold your behavior if the behavior negatively affects civilization.
Re:Summary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Funny. 5 years ago I switched my entire house to CFL's. I have had to replace ONE bulb in that time - and that was not a result of burnout, but a result of a lamp that got knocked over.
Meanwhile, it cut my energy bills by about 20%.
The link you provided has a lot of hemming and hawing, but what they fail to mention is that the one US-based plant making the incandescents? Yeah. That's IT. China was making the vast majority of incandescents ever since the early 1980s. When they talk about the bulbs made in th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of couse that's not the purpose or original intent of the commerce clause. It's simply one of the many ways the Constitution has been abused and disregarded. Read the writings of the founding fathers....try the Federalist papers. Try Federalist 56. Here's one possible article about this topic specifically: http://federalistblog.us/2011/06/no_power_over_interstate_commerce.html [federalistblog.us]
The current government and its traitorous Supreme Court judges have simply told you that it gives them the power to regulate inte
Re: (Score:3)
But it is the federal government's job to provide for our defense, which can easily be interpreted to include things like making sure that our individual actions don't add up to war, for, by example, unnecessarily using too much power and needing to import massive amounts of energy from hostile countries.
Re:Summary? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? I wasn't aware they had speed limits (as a trivial example) when common law was written. When the common law has nothing to base it's precedent on then new laws need to be created so that new precedents can be moulded by common law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On could argue, if one was feeling particularly contrary, that speeding is not the problem. It's the injuries/deaths and property damage that may result from speeding that is the problem, and those are pretty well covered like GP said.
Speed limits aren't about protecting anyone, they're about revenue generation (people still speed, after all).
Re: (Score:3)
CFLs *may* not be the greatest thing in the world but they are significantly more efficient than incandescent bulbs are.
I'd respect Rep Joe "I'm sorry BP" Barton a bit more (ok at all...) if he actually included things that required increased efficiency without saying what you should buy, but tax the energy hogs of incandescent bulbs...literall
Re:Summary? (Score:4, Insightful)
Incidentally, incandescent bulbs often are used as small heaters because it's very easy to run the infrastructure to one of them. Before I found a small heater that has a thermostat setting for 40 F, I used one to keep my tropical plants (stored in a small shed in the back yard) from freezing in the winter.
Re: (Score:3)
A washbucket with a scrubbing board takes less energy than a washing machine
And it also uses quite a bit more water...just like washing dishes by hand uses more water than a dishwasher. Of course both of those examples are time duration activities...providing light is not. Nice try though :)
Just because something is more efficient, doesn't mean that it will work as a good replacement.
Yep, we should just go back to horse n buggy, because those things used less energy and produced net zero emissions.
The 'most efficient' at the task at hand is what is important, rather than the energy used. The time saved by driving versus horseback, by not washing dishes or clothes by
Re:Good Riddens (Score:5, Informative)
Funnily enough, setting efficiency standards for lightbulbs (which most incandescents made at the time the law was passed did not meet) is exactly what the law did. Calling it a ban on incandescents is propagandizing. (Most incandescent manufacturers now have bulbs that meet the efficiency standards.)
You are describing the law as written. (Score:5, Informative)
why not simply ban inefficient bulbs?
That is exactly what the law does.
If incandescent bulbs can be made more efficient, it'd be silly to have to repeal or modify a law later.
Some companies have in fact done just that, and they are now upset at the prospect of having the law revoked after having spent all that money to comply with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why ban anything just because it's inefficient? If you want to ban it cause it's toxic, that's one thing, but if you want to ban it just because it is a waste of money, isn't that what market forces are for?
btw, try a fluorescent bulb in anything with a dimming mechanism and you'll go right back to incandescent for that socket... my god the seizure-inducing horror.
Re:Good Riddens (Score:5, Insightful)
Why ban anything just because it's inefficient? If you want to ban it cause it's toxic, that's one thing, but if you want to ban it just because it is a waste of money, isn't that what market forces are for?
Because market forces ignore the tragedy of the commons, especially when it's abstracted away as increased pollution at a plant you can't see and distributed out as an extra few dollars a month on an electric bill.
Re:Good Riddens (Score:4, Insightful)
Then the right way to go about this is to use taxes and fees so the externalities are included in the power bill. I don't understand the fixation on light bulbs - there are lots of ways to conserve power. Let's let people decide for themselves how they want to do it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's the obvious solution to some, but it's not a terribly good one. If people were perfectly rational and had infinite thinking and observational capacity, your solution would work fine. But for the half-evolved monkeys that we are, it's much more efficient to solve some of the problems via non-market means. E.g., banning manufacture of pointlessly wasteful bulbs, or having government-run home retrofit programs.
Re: (Score:3)
CFLs are also toxic: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198 [npr.org]
Furthermore, when the ban was enacted, in order to produce CFLs at a price people wanted them at, light bulb companies simply moved their factories to China [heartland.org].
Thank God we have the government telling us what to do!
Re: (Score:3)
Instead of banning incandescent bulbs because they are inefficient, why not simply ban inefficient bulbs? If incandescent bulbs can be made more efficient, it'd be silly to have to repeal or modify a law later.
That's exactly what they did. Guess who's lying to you...
Re: (Score:3)
No there isn't. The incandescents at the time couldn't reach the standard. There are many out there now that can.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The ban is all about taking care of the externalities that the market has failed on.