This annoys me to no end. I like incandescent light bulbs; they’re very warm, and make my home feel like, well a home.
wth? Why did the gov’ment take away my incandescent bulbs? What happened to a free market, with supply and demand?
incandescent light bulbs are 2% efficient at doing their intended jobs. they really deserve to be taken out back and shot.
and no, LED bulbs don’t require a second mortgage. they’re a lot more expensive, but they’ll pay for themselves via their drastically lower energy usage and longer life. Just don’t buy the $2 pieces of shit you find in the bargain bin.
and as for why the guv’mit mandated phasing them out, it’s because of the first point I raised. They burn hundreds of watts to produce a couple of watts of light. That’s miserably poor efficiency by any measure. And power generation isn’t free. The power that incandescent light bulbs waste is lost. period.
Not what I understand, what I do see is that a lot of the issues are exaggerated by some media:
You’ll get no argument from me that LED`s are far more efficient. My argument relates to the following point(s).
I am paying my electric bill. If I choose to buy an inefficient bulb, and spend my hard-earned money on incandescent light, then why can’t I?
They are not illegal. This link is for page 1 of 4 on an Ace Hardware incandescent light bulb search.
Because Obama, Greenpeace, and the other Democratic fascists have a compulsive need to control your life. And once they get inside your home, the first thing they’re going to do is…
wipes away froth
Incandescent lightbulbs are basically a case of market failure, because people were unable to see that the cost of a lightbulb is almost entirely in electricity and not in the lightbulb itself. There are very few examples where incandescent make economic sense–if you need to install a lightbulb in a place where you can’t retrieve it and are only going to use it for a short time, or if you expect the lightbulb to be broken before it wears out (in a prison, perhaps?), or if someone is so impoverished that there are better things to invest money in than lightbulbs. But on the whole, almost everyone is better off buying more energy efficient lighting.
I don’t particularly like this regulation, and I would rather have it repealed, but it at least clearly accomplishes its purpose, which is making life on average better. There are much bigger fish in the sea than this.
To answer this directly: our culture has decided that if a large number of people make a decision that is objectively poor for them and results in some negative externalities for the rest of us, that we reserve the right to ban such activity. Think hard drugs for a good analogy.
I wouldn’t call it market failure in all cases, I know exactly how much it costs to burn incandescent bulbs compared to LEDs and a choose to burn them. The best quality light is one thing I can afford. Light bulbs are one thing most people can afford to stockpile a lifetime supply of, I may have to do that if halogens are still going to be banned and LEDs still aren’t good enough yet.
I guess you missed the part where this law was passed during the Bush administration.
Froth if you must; it’s always much more entertaining when based on a fantasy.
It can be argued, but in this case the captains of industry are also moving the market.
https://www.ase.org/resources/factsheet-new-energy-efficiency-standards-light-bulbs
Then you are the exception, and it is still generally market failure. Most people burn incandescents because they think they are saving money or don’t appreciate the real costs to it.
Also, I’m pretty sure you can get the exact same color temperature with modern LED lights, and LEDs are approaching 100 CRI. There’s only a marginal basis for still using incandescents.
I was being sarcastic, but I guess I should’ve been a bit more exaggerated. A shame.
The other thing is that incandescents were basically a commodity–identical between manufacturers and produced on extremely low margins. Higher priced lighting has more exclusive features and has more room for profit, which is why manufacturers lobbied for the ban, and why it got passed.
“Energy-saving” incandescent bulbs can be bought off the shelf at Target for a buck apiece.
Incandescent bulbs are not banned. They have never been banned. The government took nothing away.
Now go write that 100 times on the nearest blackboard.
And for Pete’s sake. Stop listening to anyone who tells you different. Now.
From the article:
Which is why Halogen lamps are still permitted, even though they suck energy, too.
Nobody pays the entire cost of electricity generation and distribution. Or to look at it another way, everyone pays for it. Energy generation and distribution is subsidized and cross-subsidized by the tax payer and the electricity consumer in all sorts of ways. Since the rest of us are partially paying for your electricity (and everyone else’s), many of us think the electricity system should be used efficiently.
On top of that, many types of electricity generation release greenhouse gasses. And while there has been a big shift in electricity generation to lower greenhouse-gas technologies, a good chunk of our power generation still releases greenhouse gasses, which is a cost you (and all electricity users) spread to everyone else.
The government already regulates fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. You may not think it’s the government’s business, but fortunately for the rest of us, many people think it is the government’s business.
As everyone else said, you can just go to Home Depot and buy regular light bulbs, but if you want CFLs that don’t feel like a parking garage, just look at the back of the package and buy ones with a warmer color temperature.
Most every light bulb has some sort of chart on the back like this that indicates what color the light is, buy one towards the red end of the spectrum and you really won’t be able to tell it isn’t incandescent.
But plain incandescents are banned, because they’ve been around for decades and can’t be made any more efficient, and any claim that they aren’t banned is misleading.
Your own cite states that incandescent bulbs are not banned but simply must meet new energy standards.
That’s like saying that when the government sets new MPG standards they’re banning cars.
Energy use has a cost to society apart from the cost to you of your electricity bill. A lot of electrical power comes from burning fossil fuels, which contributes to climate change and air pollution. Extraction of fossil fuels causes environmental damage. Hydroelectric power comes from damming rivers, which has its own environmental cost. Nuclear power also has environmental costs (please don’t let this thread turn into an argument about this). I believe it is within the proper role of government to regulate the way you use electricity because it affects other people.
As for your Hummer - the government mandates minimum fuel efficiency for auto makers. The regulations don’t apply to individual vehicles, but to the fleet of vehicles that a manufacturer sells. So for every gas guzzler a car company sells, it has to sell some gas sippers to make up for it. The rationale for this is that your use of fuel affects society as a whole - when you burn gasoline you contribute to air pollution and climate change, and you do some harm to national security by reducing national energy independence.
… That’s a profoundly silly way to go at it, innit ?
Not really. If that huge SUV that drinks like a fish makes be a buttload of profit I’ll be happy to make sure I also sell some nice eco friendly cars as well so I can keep makin’ those Benjamin’s.
