3/19 Poll: Ban The Bulb?

[Frank Chloupek]

Current Poll Question:

Australia has announced plans to ban traditional light bulbs and replacing them with compact fluorescent light bulbs by 2010. Should the U.S. follow suit?


Yes, and by 2010.
Yes, but in a longer time than 3 years.
No, but we should subsidize compact fluorescent light bulbs to encourage their use.
No, let the market decide.

Vote Now at:

http://www.industryweek.com#Poll

After you have voted, post your comments here.

[Glassy76]

As a former engineer making glass bulbs for incandescent lighting, I have mixed feelings about this. Compact fluorescent bulbs are clearly more energy efficient. I have personally changed over many of my incandescent bulbs to C-F's since leaving my previous job and I like them. I still like the comforting, yellow light output of incandesents, though, is some applications. They are much cheaper up front, and maybe the heat output from lamps located in my house helps defray the high heating costs from my furnace(!?) Also, I still have a lot of friends making the glass bulbs, and I need the company to stick around for a few years to keep them employed and to pay for what little pension I will be getting off them! Seriously, though, let the market decide. If the C-F's are a better product overall, both in cost, functionality and "feel", then people will buy them over incandescents. Why run the risk of corrupting people's livelihood by mandating change if the masses don't really want it?

[jj_1511]

Hi,

Unfortunately, we are too far behind in energy conservation to wait for the market to drive this. If you think our climate is wacky today, just wait ten more years...

I have done some pretty extensive research with regards to lighting. To the comment around the color change between incandescent and florescence, check out the color temperature prior to purchasing compact florescence. 2700 degrees K is pretty close to incandescent. I have purchased both dimmable and non-dimmable and they really look good! Forcing a shift has some short-term positive impacts that may not seem so obvious. Total power demand will drop. This should/will result in decreased power cost or at a minimum, less smog from coal burning power generation plants. This has long-term benefits for all of us...I like to breath and further, do not enjoy consuming mercury in my water. Less is much better here. I would add one small condition to this "forced" switch...mandate a return process so we don't end up loading our land fills with even more mercury.

I do have one more recommendation: divert the gobs of dollars going to the war effort to things like ultra-high efficiency led light source research. There have been recent advances here but low-cost commercialized outcome are a long way off. This would create yet another huge advance in the area of low-cost, highly efficient lighting.

Just my humble opinion...

[industrialuser]

I don't believe any compact fluorescent bulbs are made in the United States.

[ACF315]

I my experience, the current generation of CF's are not worth the money. The ones I have had did not last any longer then the incandescents they replaced. The warm up time is also unacceptable, even in a 68 F degree room. I had a complete Energy Star fixture that I replaced twice in 2 years before going to regular fixture.

Don't these lamps also have mercury in them? How do we handle that?

I'll wait till LED technology is up to speed and then give those a try.

[Jon Burger]

The warm up time is also unacceptable

Agreed -- it takes way too long for them to warm up, but now that I've sunk some $$ into a bunch at the house, I'll just wait for them to die.

The strange thing is, the previous owner had some installed in fixtures from several years ago -- and they light up instantly. I wonder if that is due to a different manufacturing process these days or if they "age" and turn on quicker? I'm crossing my fingers for the latter...

[Paul A. Mueller, PE]

For Christmas my adult son gave me a case of 12 CF bulbs. Now there's a gift that I appreciated! Using CFs may not be the best way to save energy but it is certainly a simple one. You may want to save energy for any of several reasons:
1. To save money
2. To reduce dependence on foreign oil
3. To reduce pollution
4. To reduce global warming
If it makes sense to you tell your friends and family.

The only negative comments I have had about CF bulbs are:
1. Due to their size they may stick up too high in a floor lamp (lamps with a housing that directs the light up to the ceiling)
2. They really need a diffuser if being used in a multi-bulb, above-mirror bathroom fixture.

There is probably some most effective way to help us with the transition. It could be some mixture of civic promotion, tax incentives for using CFs, taxation on new incandescent bulbs, gradual banning of incandescents over several years, etc.

[mmadej]

I've been very impressed by the n:vision soft white bulbs (green and white packaging) you can find at Home Depot. The 60-watt-equivalent ones are very small, reach full power in my house within a matter of 15 seconds, and put out light that is indistinguishable from an incandescent bulb. Plus they're cheap. I recently picked up a 6-pack at Home Depot for $6.99 or something fantastic like that. Wattages other than 60 are considerably more expensive, but worthwhile for certain applications.

There are a few places I haven't replaced my incandescents:
-- Spotlights in my living room
-- A dimmable fixture above my kitchen table
-- Laundry room (because I'm rarely in there for more than a couple minutes at a time so it wouldn't warrant much/any energy savings, plus I have the fixture on a motion sensor anyway)
-- Modern track lighting with compact halogen bulbs in the master bedroom

Other than those applications, I think CFs are great. Mandating them? Seems a little extreme to me, especially since they're not good for certain applications. (They don't work well in cold weather, so they're not good for exterior fixtures in the dead of winter either) But I could definitely see a tax credit or some other incentive driving a lot of people to switch.

[mmadej]

Agreed -- it takes way too long for them to warm up, but now that I've sunk some $$ into a bunch at the house, I'll just wait for them to die.

The strange thing is, the previous owner had some installed in fixtures from several years ago -- and they light up instantly. I wonder if that is due to a different manufacturing process these days or if they "age" and turn on quicker? I'm crossing my fingers for the latter...
That's strange -- I've had just the opposite experience.

I have a few CFs still sitting in a closet from when I first tried them circa 2000-2001. They put out harsh light and took forever to warm up, so I abandoned them almost immediately. I just recently compared a couple of those old bulbs to these new ones I'm using now, and the new ones are far superior. Maybe it's a brand thing? Who knows -- it might even vary from brand to brand, fixture to fixture, and bulb to bulb.

[Craig]

I'm a big fan of CF's...I've replaced almost my entire house. I have a lot of dimmers, so it wasn't easy. I'm also a fan of a more natural color temperature, one that more closely matches sunlight. I've found the perfect bulb for me, although it is quite expensive. It is a 5100 kelvin (almost pure white) dimmable bulb. I have three of these shining up on my ceiling in the living room and it really makes the house feel like a happy place.
The bathroom is another story. I have fixtures that are made to house "globe" (spherical) bulbs. I didn't think I'd find anything that would look right, but sure enough they make those shapes in a cf bulb, too! Again, I used a daylight color temperature, and my wife loves it when she's getting ready. I think the natural light helps her see what her make-up looks like before going outside. They do take a few moments to get to full brightness, but I like this...better to let my eyes adjust than blind me.
Now I wouldn't normally do this, but they've done such a good job handling my orders (and the incidental return) that I think they deserve a little plug here... I found everything I needed in cf bulbs at http://www.buylighting.com

As for government mandates, I think a few of you might already know where I stand...let the market decide. In the long run, people are smart enough to make the right decisions, whatever those might be. If there's a reason other than economic on which the decision should be made, tax incentives are a decent option (and already in place in some places, such as a $1 tax rebate per bulb in Indiana).

Just my .15 yuan.

[Old_IW_Reader]

Seems mandating their end is somewhat draconian. What would that do to the price of the bulbs, with increased demand, and no alternative source to use?
AND, the disposal problem concerns me more than anything else.
I have compact flourescents on my carport, and they light automatically every night, on a dusk to dawn switch. I've been happy with them, drawing 5 watts instead of 50. I do not care, at this point, to put them inside...Will see what happens down the road.

[mdbaldwin11]

While we should look for all reasonable means to save energy, etc., the problem of recycling these bulbs due to the amount of mercury in them must be addressed early-on. The amount of mercury in these bulbs is many times the concentration of that found in power plant emissions. What will be the long term effect on the environment if we save some energy now, and pollute the world with mercury later on?

[rbrooku]

IOther than those applications, I think CFs are great. Mandating them? Seems a little extreme to me, especially since they're not good for certain applications. (They don't work well in cold weather, so they're not good for exterior fixtures in the dead of winter either) But I could definitely see a tax credit or some other incentive driving a lot of people to switch.

Have been using about 20 of them since 2000, and the same 25 watt "bulbs" (spiral tubes on screw in bases) are still going (and even went 24/7 3 years ago). Newer ones are definitely better technology and cheaper.

As for mandates, put a sales tax on incandescents (40% ought to do it) and the market will do the rest. Fluorescent technology will improve to meet most conditions they currently do not, and incandescents will still be available (at much greater prices), in the few situations where fluorescents are not practical.

We could even use the tax proceeds to reduce the insane size of the federal budget deficit...Good idea on other energy products, too. Can't think of many other practical ways to avoid a future economic meltdown that will have a lot of us in soup lines if it isn't dealt with soon.

[Abogle]

I have begun to switch out some of the lights that we use and leave on regularly. So far I am not really seeing any difference in my electric bill, definitely not enough to offset the cost. I have had some in the past and they clearly do not last as long as advertised, and I don't really care for the delayed start up.

About the best I can hope for I think is a slight hedge against future utility increases.

I think the best option is to encourage the use thru incentives rather than mandates, such as being able to deduct the costs of the bulbs from your electric bill or taxes for example.

[dgba7aa]

Of course it should be banned. Wasteful planned obsolescence is never a good long term business move. The box I was looking for was Yes, and we should do it sooner.

[Gunny]

Mandate cf's, mandate return programs. Get real. You'll be cursing this decision as soon as the first "investigative journalist" breaks a "who knew?" story about fugitive mercury contamination.

[Mike.Stempo]

Let the Free Market decide. Take the LED trend...One can already see the benefits of switching out incandescent traffic lights with LED arrays. As incandescent traffic light stocks are depleted and sometimes even before, LED's are replacing them...longer life, higher initial cost but lower overall cost, less maintenance and they usually don't all burn out at once unless the driver goes.

I replaced a number of applications around my house with CFI's, particularly spotlights. However, I have a large share of switches on dimmers and use them to control incandescent lighting levels. Without real sophisticated circuitry ($$$), try that with CFI's. Sure, you can now buy three way CFI's but the are far more expensive and the color balance is STILL most undesirable no matter what they say...and the too often flicker out of the corner of my eye is still most annoying to me!

"White" LED's unless one gets really expensive color balance ones still emit that annoying cold bluish :eek: cast. I bought a few white LED strings for the Christmas tree (colored LED's seem to be ok). Yikes! Very unpleasant eery look.

[rbrooku]

To all the "big fans of the market", that is an ideology, and ideologies simply do not reflect reality. There is a basis to every ideology, like "Liberal" at its core means equality and social justice, and "Conservative" means prosperity and property rights. But, one moment of reflection and anyone can see that the thing that is true about any "ideology" is only a partial truth.

Take email spam as an example. It happens because the "market" for spam uses common resources that spammers utilize cheaply ("bandwidth" and your computer), and consequently suck up and waste those resource. That is part and parcel of "market".

Same thing with energy usage. So the question is not whether or not to leave it to the "market", but how to balance the common needs with the individual needs. Government does its job best when it leads rather than forces, and taxes and fees are the strongest tools for that. But, regulation is also part of that, though a part that should be limited as much as is practical.

In this case, incandescents waste energy, and wasting energy has cost the country, as a whole, a hefty price in money and blood. So, it is practical to add a stiff tax to incandescents, and thereby not mandate a "ban". If mercury is a problem with CFs, then mandate a return policy with a hefty refundable return fee for them, and a requirement that anyone who sells them must also accept them as returns and refund the return fee. After time, non-mercury CFs will become available, if the taxes and fees for both incandescents and mercury containing CFs is stiff enough ($2.00 per bulb?).

After that, the "market" would produce mercury-less CFs, and incandescents would fall out of favor but still be available for any applications where nothing else is practical.

But, solutions like this can only happen when the political body is given over to carefully considered practicality rather than manipulated by partisan or economic ideologies.

[Craig]

Well spoken, rbrooku. The only question is how much time we would be willing to wait for the market to right itself if the government didn't interfere. Take your spam example...eventually the public will become educated enough not to buy things from spam emails and the economic incentive to spam people would disappear. But are we willing to wait for that?

Anyways, you propose a good alternative to influence the market without directly interrupting it, in my opinion.

[moskvin]

Current Poll Question:

Australia has announced plans to ban traditional light bulbs and replacing them with compact fluorescent light bulbs by 2010. Should the U.S. follow suit?


Yes, and by 2010.
Yes, but in a longer time than 3 years.
No, but we should subsidize compact fluorescent light bulbs to encourage their use.
No, let the market decide.

Vote Now at:

http://www.industryweek.com#Poll

After you have voted, post your comments here.

Before deciding on this issue, interested parties should consider information such as can be found at http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/faqs/incandescent.htm the point being that for many applications, the spectral repsonse of any given lamp, be it flourescent, QH, NaVapor, etc, all have important characteristics that are critical to many fields, e.g. spectrophotgrametry. A "ban" would likely result in having to get permits and pay fees in an already disfunctional bureaucracy.

[Frank Chloupek]

Australia has announced plans to ban traditional light bulbs and replacing them with compact fluorescent light bulbs by 2010. Should the U.S. follow suit?


Yes, and by 2010. 44.25%

Yes, but in a longer time than 3 years. 6.19%

No, but we should subsidize compact fluorescent light bulbs to encourage their use. 10.97%

No, let the market decide. 38.58%

---------------

"Yes," by a slim margin.

[mmadej]

As if this debate isn't already interesting enough...

According to ScrewThatBulb.org (http://www.screwthatbulb.org/), GE is asking consumers and its employees to sign a pledge to use compact fluorescent bulbs. Since GE makes incandescent bulbs in the U.S. and CFs are made in China, GE Lighting employees contend they're being forced to pledge to put themselves out of a job.

Additional articles on the subject:

From the Warren (OH) Tribune Chronicle:
Unions urge GE to make bulbs locally (http://www.tribune-chronicle.com/Business/articles.asp?articleID=17922)

Blog post:
Regional sustainability, CF bulbs and the China connection (http://www.callahansclevelanddiary.com/?p=269)

So what do you think? Save the planet but harm U.S. manufacturing? In the Tribune Chronicle article, the GE spokesperson says GE wouldn't be able to remain competitive if it made CF bulbs in the U.S. Is a win-win possible in this situation?

[mmadej]

In the May issue of Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/home_improvement/4215199.html?page=1), editors tested seven different brands of CFLs and compared them to an incandescent bulb. The results? All of the CFLs beat the incandescent bulb on quality of the light they produced.