"Last month, California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D) announced he would propose a bill to ban the use of incandescent bulbs in his state."

How bad does the Great Nanny Government have to get before someone notices?

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a40/

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/09/bulb.ban.ap/index.html

FWIW, I don't use incandescent bulbs but that was MY choice, not something forced on me by some two-bit politician

If I'm not mistaken, atleast in Ohio, Thats the same type of bulb they use for the streetlights. So yeah, We'll see what happens with this...

I work in the world of commercial and industrial lighting. CNN talks about mercury vapor in fluorescents - it's vaporized when it's operating but not when it's off. Mercury is nasty stuff and I'm glad that there have not only been regulations for it's handling and disposal but also that it's use has been reduced in the lamps (lighting geek for "light bulbs") themselves. You have to have some mercury to make it work, but lamp manufacturers keep pushing the amount that they need down farther and farther.

I guess it's confusing because mercury vapor is/was a common type of light source years ago, but it's been replaced by more effecient (and better overall) metal halide for 20 years or so. There's also high pressure sodium which has that yellow tint to it - but all of these, other than incandescent, need some amount of mercury to operate.

Incandescents are easy targets - they don't make economic sense. Not only are they about 95% ineffecient (producing more heat than light), they don't last long and maintenance costs are high just because of it. Of course this is really only a concern for commercial users, but it's not always fun to set up a ladder and change one in an inconvenient place at your own house.

The funny as in odd thing is that I can show people how they might get a 30-50% return on their investment (try for a guaranteed rate like that on any other investment) and it's not enough to get a lot of people interested. They need some sort of tax credit or utility rebate before they'll consider doing it. The recent hike in electric rates has people interested too, somewhat. They can afford to wait a year or two for a few dollars, but are just that much farther behind on saving on their electric bills...

So yeah, I'm in favor of this one - and not just from the extent that it benefits me personally. Saving energy not only saves money to the person paying the energy bill, but has environmental benefits as well.

Incandescents are easy targets - they don't make economic sense. Not only are they about 95% ineffecient (producing more heat than light), they don't last long and maintenance costs are high just because of it.

Our house we have incandescent bulbs that have twice the life of their fluorescent low energy counterparts. Maybe it's a 240V vs 120V thing, we run at lower current for the same power.

What is the true cost of the low energy bulbs?
The plastic casing, electronic PCB, fluorescent coating, all goes to make them less easily disposable. The new WEEE directive in Europe mean they can't be disposed of in rubbish.
The materials and manufacturing cost compared to the incandescent bulbs, surely has to be higher?
How about the energy cost of production, and the "CO2 footprint" that seems in favour as a metric now?
More esoteric chemicals in the coating, solder (lead?), PCB sealants, washes in manufacturing., what is the pollution and raw materials impact?

You have to stack all that against the inefficiency of incandescent bulbs, has anyone got real values for these and not made up marketing numbers?


And a final to the manufacturers, make a dimmable fluorescent that works just like the current incandescent bulbs so that I don't have to keep using incandescents ...


Oh yes and who voted for those nannies in your administration and how long do you have to wait to vote them out again?

You have to stack all that against the inefficiency of incandescent bulbs, has anyone got real values for these and not made up marketing numbers?

Good point. I don't have the numbers for things you mention and I'll bet it would be next to impossible to really calculate all of that - at least I don't know how to come up with a number I'd consider accurate.

The problem is that incandescents are so ineffecient that it doesn't take much to improve on them. Compact fluorescents (CF) are roughly 1/4 the wattage for the same light and can last several to a dozen times as long. Less stuff to haul around - one point in favor of CF. We do have laws here too about disposal of electronics and mercury - California leads the nation but the rest of the country eventually seems to follow.

Incandescent life is a variable, actually - it has nothing to do with 120v vs. 240v that powers it (half the amperage for twice the voltage = same wattage). One old trick that commercial buildings used was 130v bulbs so basically they're running at 92%, makes them last 2-1/2 times as long although they're not quite as bright. Same thing as running them on a dimmer backed off a little bit. Traffic signal bulbs are designed to last for a long time - really heavy filiments so they don't put out as much light for the same wattage, that gets into tradeoffs for the design engineers (yes, for light bulbs!).

CO2 footprint - gotta think about that one. I may be able to come up with some info. Oh, and dimmable CF's are getting better. I know of one US manufacturer doing very well with them but they're not well known to most people.

I have no problems dumping incandescents. As I stated, I haven't used them for a few years. But it is NOT the job of government to tell us not to. If some idiot prefers to use up lots of energy, he will pay a much higher price for the privilage.

I am looking at the relatively new LCD lights. These are allegedly the most efficient so far.

I am looking at the relatively new LCD lights. These are allegedly the most efficient so far.

Great for flashlights and Exit signs - no bulbs to replace, and in the case of flashlights the batteries last a long time. But - the color of the clear LED's is horrible. We'll see LED's used for more general applications some day but not yet.

I'm generally not in favor of the government telling me what to do either but in my experience with this scenario, people won't do it until they are forced to do it. And there are a lot of good reasons to do it, then they'll see it it is a smart decision. Kind of like the auto industry saying they were going to go bankrupt if they were forced to put seatbelts in cars. I remember similar complaints (not quite as drastic) with the center brakelights required in '86.

Great for flashlights and Exit signs - no bulbs to replace, and in the case of flashlights the batteries last a long time. But - the color of the clear LED's is horrible. We'll see LED's used for more general applications some day but not yet.

I'm generally not in favor of the government telling me what to do either but in my experience with this scenario, people won't do it until they are forced to do it. And there are a lot of good reasons to do it, then they'll see it it is a smart decision. Kind of like the auto industry saying they were going to go bankrupt if they were forced to put seatbelts in cars. I remember similar complaints (not quite as drastic) with the center brakelights required in '86.

LED lights have come a very long way. White light LEDs are daylight balanced which work well. On the C. Crane site they say:

"If every U.S. household replaced just one standard 60 watt bulb with a CC Vivid LED bulb, we could save 24,184,400,000 watts or 24,184.4 mega (million) watts per day."

Do we need a law to enforce this savings? I think we would agre no in spite of the energy savings.

Seatbelts are a different story. Having them available in cars is fine, forcing people to use them is wrong. Let people make the choice. This stuff clears itself out. Choose not to wear seatbelts and chances are you'll die off. Personal choice.

Almost the same with the brake lights. The popularity of huge SUVs and trucks meant that even people who wanted to see the brakelights of small cars sometimes couldn't. It is still up to the driver to decide if he wants to ignore them.

Do we need a law to enforce this savings? I think we would agre no in spite of the energy savings.

Like I said, my experience has been different. A lot of people only see the fact that they used to spend less than a few cents on a bulb and now they spend a few dollars. If you look at nothing other than this fact it seems like a bad deal, obviously - but there's a little more to it than that.

LED's are much more effecient than fluorescent and I do know one company working with them for "normal" applications. It's still a ways out before we see them on the shelf next to CF's at Home Depot though. A typical Exit sign, for comparison, uses 40w of incandescent, 14w of fluorescent or about 3.5w of LED. Since they're red or green, color quality isn't an issue.