Energy

Because Consumers Balk at Spending 10 Times As Much for a Light Bulb, They Must Be Forced

|

Tonight the House of Representatives is expected to vote on a bill sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) aimed at repealing the ban on conventional incandescent light bulbs that will start to take effect in January. Over at FrumForum, David Jenkins says the whole exercise is a charade, because "there is no light bulb 'ban.'" Instead there are federal energy efficiency standards that will make the least expensive, most popular bulbs illegal. See the difference? Me neither.

Jenkins says those efficiency standards are clearly justified because the industry supports them and because they benefit consumers, who will save enough money on electricity to more than make up for higher bulb prices. Consumers, of course, have always been free to take advantage of this bargain, and the vast majority have not: According to the Energy Department (PDF), more than 80 percent of residential light sockets were still occupied by standard incandescent bulbs last year. Because consumers are too stupid to perceive the clear advantages of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), LED bulbs, halogen bulbs, or the new, extra-efficient incandescents, they must be forced to buy them. Is it surprising that manufacturers support a law that allows them to foist newer, more expensive products on customers who otherwise would pass them up?

Jenkins accuses Barton of misleading the public by "saying that bulbs meeting the new standards are cost prohibitive." In fact, Jenkins says, "a Philips incandescent bulb that meets the new standards currently sells for $1.49, lasts about 50 percent longer than older incandescent bulbs, and saves consumers more than $3.00 in energy expenditures." He presumably is referring to the Philips EcoVantage bulb. By his own account, it costs nearly five times as much as a standard 100-watt incandescent bulb, which can be had for 31 cents (in a $2.48 eight-pack) at Lowe's. But I can't find a vendor that sells the EcoVantage equivalent of that 31-cent bulb for less than $3 (in a $5.99 two-pack), almost 10 times as much.

Is that "prohibitive"? (That seems to be Jenkins' word, by the way, not Barton's.) No, but it means people will have to spend more money on light bulbs and less on other things they value more. Let's assume that the EcoVantage bulbs, unlike CFLs, perform just as well as standard incandescents, and their only disadvantage is that they cost a lot more. Even if the calculations about long-term savings (which depend on longevity assumptions that in my experience are highly exaggerated) are accurate, people should be free to pass them up in favor of more money in their pockets now. Otherwise there is no end to the purchase decisions the government might choose to override in the name of saving people money over the long term. Why let people buy cheap cars, appliances, or luggage when they could get more durable, more reliable products for five or 10 times as much?

More on the bulb not-ban here and here. Reason.tv covered the subject last October:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

226 responses to “Because Consumers Balk at Spending 10 Times As Much for a Light Bulb, They Must Be Forced

  1. FrumForum. Huffington Post. See the difference? Me neither.

    1. Huffington Post has Balko, so they aren’t wrong every post anymore.

    2. Danny. Tony. See the difference? Me neither/

    3. Well yes, there is a difference. And unfortunately, many consumers are too stupid to make good decisions. So I really don’t care if they whine. Stupid people should not hold the rest of us back.

      1. Stupid people should not hold the rest of us back.
        Great point, that’s why you retarded slavers should stop trying to hold the rest of us back by forcing us to purchase only those things that make you feel good.

        1. Looks like Danny’s doctor is in the house.

          Just fucking wonderful.

  2. Sell the incandescents, but put on a tax equivalent to the difference between them and CFL/LED in terms of lifetime carbon emissions.

    No externalities, no free lunches, right folks?

    1. Absolutely. After we add in the cost of mercury disposal and recycling for CFLs. No externalities!

      1. Agreed. And in the meantime, be sure to recycle those things — don’t just throw them in the trash.

        1. Come to think of it, a bottle-type refundable deposit might be a better option than a tax for CFLs with mercury.

        2. I would prefer throwing your anti-librty ass in the trash, Danny.

          1. Wow, for someone who loves liberty, you sure seem to have a preference for violent coercion.

            1. …a preference for violent coercion.

              Is it coercion to punch someone trying to steal your wallet?

              1. It’s definitely racist.

    2. Anyone who thinks a new tax isn’t a free lunch for somebody obviously doesn’t understand what happens to that tax revenue.

      Taxation is the very definition of free lunch, for whoever gets the taxes.

      1. Unless it’s revenue-neutral — just raise the zero-bracket by whatever increment the additional tax brings in.

        1. Or spend the money undoing the damage done by the light bulbs. In fact isn’t that the point of ‘taxing’ the light bulbs in the first place? (Charging someone for the damage they do isn’t a tax, it’s a fine.)

    3. Please don’t feed the troll.

      1. That trick never works.

        1. This time for sure! Presto!!

    4. carbon emissions.

      No externalities, no free lunches, right folks?

      CO2 is plant food.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE

      We should be taxing farmers to pay SUV owners…can’t let those positive externalities go untaxed.

      1. I know it’s a joke, but the difference between positive and negative externalities is:
        You may not (may, in fact, not) charge for benefits conferred without consent. You do not have to pay someone who mowed your lawn without asking.

        1. According Coase you do…or at least according to some economists who hold very strict interpretations of Coase.

          like these guys:

          http://www.env-econ.net/

          I do not hold that particular interpretation.

          1. Sorry, yeah, I disagree with Coase. I was saying from a libertarian perspective you cannot charge for benefits conferred without consent, but you can expect restitution for damage done to your property.

    5. I think neo-classicist economics has it precisely 180 degrees backwards. The presence of negative externalities is PROOF that the government is interfering in the marketplace.

      Why aren’t people recycling CFLs? Because they’re buying incandescents! No externality! Duh!

    6. Why, Danny? Just to make you feeeeel better?

      Fuck off.

    7. You’re 100% correct. But just raising the standard is easier, so might as well do it that way. These idiot tea partiers who think this is somehow infringing on their liberty will scream and cry no matter what. Just get it done.

      And then laugh at anyone who still pays high electricity bills – it’s their own darn fault.

      1. Buy whatever light bulbs you want, Doctor. But while you’re at it, shut the fuck up about what kind OTHERS want to buy.

  3. This has failed to piss me off as much as it should have. I think my anger glands are going the way of SugarFree’s pancreas.

    1. I hear you can get quality ape anger glands implanted in Singapore, if you’ve got the money.

          1. I’ve consumed a few of those, and my ire is back to its normal, youthful, tantrum-throwing levels. Thanks Monkey Gland!

            1. Have you tried The Planet of The Apes yet. It is becoming my wife’s favorite cocktail, nipped at the heels of her beloved extra-dirty martini, even.

              1. Me no type gud.

                1. I’m not trying that until I can have it with a helping of Soylent Green.

                  1. The Omega Man can eat whatever he pleases. For a while, at least.

                    1. When I think about that movie, I picture Heston shooting people as he gets gas, shooting people at dinner, shooting people when he gets up to take a piss at night, shooting people while watching movies. Regular life, but with shooting people all the time.

                    2. Shooting people while he’s getting bullets… whoa, meta…

                    3. Shooting people while he’s shooting people while he’s shooting people.

      1. I’m just going to smuggle back some rageabolic steroids from Mexico instead. Hope I don’t get caught.

        1. Just take them all while you are down there. WARTY WANT CRUNCHY TACO, PUNY MEXICAN!

          1. A good point. But will this turn me into a superhero or a supervillain?

            1. Half hero on one side and half villain on the other.

              1. ES EL RABIADOR WARTADO! HUYE!

        2. You will turn into Deadpool, Warty. Super anti-hero.

  4. Jenkins says those efficiency standards are clearly justified because the industry supports them and because they benefit consumers, who will save enough money on electricity to more than make up for higher bulb prices.

    Most of the power plants in this country use coal for fuel. With the recent new EPA regulations on the coal industry most assuredly raising generating costs, I don’t think anyone is going to be realizing any savings on their electricity bills that would amount to much of anything.

    1. ^^^This

    2. What kind of light bulbs do they use in coal mines?

      1. They just burn the coal in the walls.

        1. Is it warm in here, or is it just me?

    3. clearly justified because the industry supports them and ?

      Well, NO FUCKING SHIT they support them. Anything to get a piece of the regulated market pie and keep motherfuckers out. Come to think of it, I can’t remember the last time I bought a light bulb that didn’t have GE’s label on it.

    4. The fact is, moving to more efficient bulbs will save people money in the long run. I don’t want to “force” people to use them, but if we dont force them, then they’ll just start whining about electricity costs in 10 years and demand more filthy coal.

      It’s unfortunately true- most consumers are actually idiots and this kind of legislation really is needed!

      1. So let me get this straight. People are idiots, so government has to make their decisions for them, force them to do it, and this is somehow not infringing upon their liberty. Hey – I’ve got an idea: if we only have freedom for people smart enough to make the right choice we’d be much better off!

        1. How about we don’t charge more for electricity, artificially-inflated-price-wise?

          Fuck that. Fuck Obama’s ideas about that. Fuck ANYONE’S ideas about that.

  5. Industry supports the de facto ban? Sure, I imagine GE loves the profit margin it’ll get on LCDs, fluorescents, LEDs, etc., without having to continue to provide inexpensive alternatives.

    I’m not sure I get why this needed legislation in the first place, as the market is likely to move away from incandescent lighting sooner or later as new technologies continue to develop and mature.

    1. They got sick of half-measures like EnergyStar ratings. Banning conventional bulbs makes them feel like all their useless bitching and moaning is finally getting somewhere.

    2. Without the law, the incandescents are basically commodity goods while the fluorescents carry a premium price. However, few are buying them, and wont until that price drops (standard first mover pricing and etc).

      GE doesnt want to miss out on the higher margin price point while selling to EVERYONE. High margin for everyone followed by low margin for everyone is better than high margin for 10% followed by low margin for everyone.

      1. Government-mandated margin?

        1. Pretty much. Why else would the companies be supporting it? Its rent seeking at its finest (or lowest, I guess).

          1. I disapprove.

    3. What sickens me more than anything about this particular issue is the number of good little comrades who voluntarily use these compact flourescents to save the Motherland or the world or the Revolution or whatever. It’s another example of liberal declinism – sure, the quality of the light is horrible, but we’ve got to sacrifice to save the planet!

      If you haven’t already stocked up on a lifetime supply of incandescents you are part of the problem.

      1. What sickens you most, more than actual government intervention, is that people make choices for themselves that you disagree with because you believe their motivations are too altruistic? Wow, dude.

        1. It’s those misguided “altruistic” motivations that ultimately enable the government intervention into our lives (via “democracy”). An environmentalist high-priest declares that the world will be saved by no longer heating a bit of tungsten to incandescence, and these sheep run out to Home Depot to buy the green-friendly bulbs, even though everything about them sucks. Yes, they sicken me.

      2. Right… if you’re dumb enough to think this is some kind of communist plot, then you really need to get out of this country.

        Have fun with your incandescents. I will laugh at you and your SUV when energy prices double, then triple.

  6. What will children in the future think of cartoons that use the light bulb as a symbol for a good idea?

    By then they will have been taught that the incandescent light bulb caused the global warming that never happened and was the worst thing mankind ever created.

    They’ll probably ban the cartoons so the question will never be asked.

    1. They will think you dont have a thought until you have already tripped down the basement stairs.

    2. times 11.7.84 representation doubleplusungood refs unproducts rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling

  7. Otherwise there is no end to the purchase decisions the government might choose to override in the name of saving people money over the long term.

    Commerce Clause, bitches.

    The Constitution that Failed. Sadly, most of us realize that it would only get worse if we were to hold a new constitutional convention to rewrite it.

    Tony, Danny and Chad win.

    1. A Draco post I can agree with.

      Although, Im willing to take the chance on the ConConv.

      1. There would be something fresh and honest about watching the Chonys and Minges of the world sidle up to the table and tell us what their ideal governments would look like: something like the old GDR (East Germany) no doubt. I say write two constitutions, the libertarian one, and the progressive one, and then split the country into two nations – you get to choose which one you live under. Then we bury them economically – and I don’t care which of the 25 states we’d be left with.

        1. Preferably one of the 25 be without snow 360+ days per year.

        2. Why would the land have to be contiguous? Let the owner of every plot of land choose.

          1. I’ve had high level discussions of this with my more geo-strategic friends, and the consensus is that you need sea coasts and strong internal routes. While I tend to believe that we could bury them with any 25 states, I must admit there are some important strategic issues in play – including defending against the inevitable resort to force once the progressives had lost the economic competition.

        3. States as laboratories of government? That’s a silly idea…

          1. States as laboratories. . .of slavery!

  8. I’d feel better about this whole thing if they’d just make recycling more convenient.

  9. Is it just my imagination, or is frumforum populated exclusively by idiots?

    1. The rampant frumming is finally taking effect.

    2. Salon.com has more right-wing comments than FrumForum.

  10. missed in this story:

    Joe Barton (R – TX) is saving are light bulb:
    “I do thank the lord, I live in Texas”
    The best statement was if the Feds want to put light bulb police along the Oklahoma, Louisiana….. borders….

  11. long-term savings (which depend on longevity assumptions that in my experience are highly exaggerated)

    No kidding.

  12. Forget some guy named Jenkins.

    Here’s the “Department of Energy” Secretary Steven Chu: “We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money”

    Mark Steyn takes him to task here.

    1. Not only is that sentiment (from Chu) disgusting, but there’s a comment in there that made my day:

      tanstaafl
      07/11/11 10:46

      Link

      Report Abuse

      It has been well said that really up to date liberals do not care what people do, as long as it is compulsory.
      ~George Will

    2. If only we could take away Mr Chu’s choice that allows him to waste other people’s money.

  13. “David Jenkins says the whole exercise is a charade, because “there is no light bulb ‘ban.'” Instead there are federal energy efficiency standards that will make the least expensive, most popular bulbs illegal. ”

    Ha, I get it! Just like there is no “ban” on pot, just a tax that requires tax stamps they don’t actually give out!

  14. Prophylactic disclaimer: I don’t support banning any physical object other than those with WMD-type capabilities. However…

    Is it surprising that manufacturers support a law that allows them to foist newer, more expensive products on customers who otherwise would pass them up?

    CFLs aren’t more expensive when you consider how long they last. Some of the most profitable products are cheap items that have to be replaced often — Gilette makes a shitload more money on razor blades than they do on razors, for instance.

    I just had one of the CFL bulbs I bought for $8 in college (2001 I believe) burn out on me last week. Pretty sure GE didn’t make more money off that purchase than they would have if I’d been buying incandescents over the past 10 years. And it cost me only $4 to replace it! We’re not talking a backbreaking price burden here.

    I suspect manufacturers support this because they don’t like having to make two different kinds of bulbs and don’t want to be undercut by competitors if they switch to making only CFLs.

    1. I put CFLs in the bathroom and they take five minutes to warm up, then burn out because they don’t like being switched on and off.
      The ones in the kitchen have lasted five years so far.

      1. The majority of the ones I buy die within weeks. And the light distracts me — that never happens with oldies. So fuck the fucking federal government, and fuck their fucking CFLs.

        1. The super-cheap CFLs (the $2 ones) are probably poorly made. I’ve never had a problem with one from GE or Sylvania. Of course, I’ve only bought like 6 of them in my lifetime, 2 from burnouts and 4 to replace incandescents, so maybe I’ve just been lucky.

          1. Of course, Tulpa, your statement is irrelevant, and so is mine, and so is our entire discussion about our experiences here, because we’ve just dug ourselves into rationality — we experience products, and we buy what we prefer, based on our own preferences, our own choices. Statist shitheads want to take that choice away.

            It really is fucking sad. It’s your money, and you can do whatever you want with it, and Mr. Chu of the D of Energy can eat shit and die.

          2. I’ve never bought any CFLs except GEs or Sylvnia.

            I’ve had way too many burn out early. As in, within a few months.

        2. Little angry are we, Res? Sounds like you weren’t smart enough to buy the right bulbs. Serves you right!

      2. Why are you switching them on and off? They actually use less energy if you just leave them on a few hours at a time. Also this will help cut down on mold growth.

        1. They use less energy when they are switched on than when they are switched off?

          That’s a new one.

          1. The process of turning on can use as much energy as they use in an hour of being left on.

            1. Adam and Jamie ruled that one BUSTED.

              1. They tested one final element of this myth: frequently turning lights on and off decreases their life span, thus leading to greater costs. Grant setup a timer and relay to turn the bulbs on and off repeatedly every 2 minutes. After six weeks, only the LED bulb was still working. Based on this test, they extrapolated that it would take five years of ordinary usage to cause the bulbs to burn out.

                This experiment makes no sense. They’re not comparing bulbs that are turned off and on vs. bulbs that are left on, so I’m not sure how they can “extrapolate” to mean anything.

                1. I was referring to saving energy by leaving them on.

                  Based on the amount of energy consumed turning on the bulb, they were able calculated how long the bulb would have to be turned off in order to make it worth the energy savings, i.e. “It’s best to turn off the bulb if you are leaving the room for”:

                  * Incandescent: 0.36 seconds
                  * CFL: 0.015 seconds
                  * Halogen: .51 seconds
                  * LED: 1.28 seconds
                  * Fluorescent: 23.3 seconds

                  In other words, its almost always best to turn the bulb off. Even the 23 seconds for the fluorescent lights isn’t very long, and the rest of the times are pretty much blinks of an eye.

                2. They really should change the name of that show to QuestionBeggers…

        2. “”They actually use less energy if you just leave them on a few hours at a time. “”

          So are we suppose to raise our kids to leave the lights on?

          Bottom line. You use a light for the time period which you need. Leaving it on only to remember to shut it off a couple of hours later is a trip to stupidville.

          But in a free country, we wouldn’t be having this debate because we could buy what the market offered.

    2. I’m glad that worked out for you. I have one bulb left from 2004, when we largely switched over in my house, but my experience has been the opposite. The smaller ones I have in my bed-side reading lamps burn out every couple of years, no matter which brand I use, and I’ve read online (which means it must be 100% true, I know) that this is a common occurance in the CFLs which are turned off and on frequently.

      Even assuming an old-tymey bulb would have burned out every six months, I’m still nowhere near to coming close to making up the price difference at 8x cost.

      1. Then don’t turn it off and on frequently! Turn it on when you come home from work and turn it off when you want to go to sleep. It will last much longer.

        1. At what point am I wasting more energy with CFLs than incandescents because I’m leaving every fucking bulb in my house on all the time?

          More seriously, I like CFL’s because I can replace, say, a 60W incandescent with a 26W CFL. More light, bitches! But a lumen-for-lumen swap is pointless to me.

        2. Why the fuck should I have to do that, when I can just buy a cheap bulb for $.30 that I can turn off and on when I damned well please? If I wanted to have lightbulbs that I had to turn on when I got home from work just to have them function correctly, then I would have voluntarily purchased them.

          Also, completely personal, but my wife claims that she can’t fall asleep with the light they give off (which according to her “looks different” than the light from the old variety that she was used to. Not sure if I believe her or not, but I’d buy the old style just to keep her from complaining about it. If I had the option to, that is).

          1. The light is different. It’s not full spectrum like incandescents. If you look at the spectrographs you see a horribly jagged line with a huge spike in the green spectrum. This spike is used to bump up the lumen numbers because humans perceive more values of green than any other color and therefore the lights “look” brighter. That is also how they bump up the lumen values which is a bullshit number representing how bright the light is perceived to be by the human eye.

      2. Same experience here. I decided to use them in my reading room where my lighting is overhang, and the radiosity of the bulbs is actually pleasant and not distracting. Eighteen months later and I’ve gone through a pack of bulbs per lamp (3) with only one remaining. I switched back before letting that one blow out, however.

        a Philips incandescent bulb that meets the new standards currently sells for $1.49, lasts about 50 percent longer than older incandescent bulbs, and saves consumers more than $3.00 in energy expenditures.

        Price reflects both subsidy and the existence of alternatives. I hazard to guess what the price will be after January. I actually hope there is a jack up for agit-prop purposes of being able to point to the evil of government doing its damnedest to create serfs and eliminate the Good Life.

    3. Recently, I had to replace the first CFL I ever purchased. It was on for about 18 hours per day, 7 days a week, since October 2000. Every single CFL I have purchased since that 1st one seems to die within a year or two. As I type this, I am sitting on a hot set surrounded by dozens of 2000, 18,000, and 24,000 Watt theatrical lights. We are actively subverting any savings to be realized from CFL use.

      1. Maybe the manufacturing quality is going downhill (mine are so old that they might be from the “good old days”). I imagine it’s much harder to make a good CFL than a good incandescent.

    4. Wow. That’s pretty good. I’ve never gotten mine to last that long. They always burn out before I can see a return on my initial investment.

  15. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhtcaRRngcw

    The world’s ending, people — our country is slowly falling into the abyss!

  16. Ronald Reagan signed the first appliance energy efficency standards into law. As a result we now have better, more efficent refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machine’s etc.

    I assume then that Jacob still prefers inefficent 1970s era appliances to the new ones.

    The Eco Vantage incandescent pays for itself halfway through its 1000 hour lifespan…the rest is savings. When does the old incandescent pay for itself? I believe the correct answer is NEVER. It just makes sure that you pay through the nose to power bulbs that waste 90 percent of their energy throwing off excess heat.

    Believe it or not, innovation is a good thing. So is conservation.

    The great conservative icon Russell Kirk had it right when he wrote:

    “Nothing is more conservative than conservation.”

    Those who think waste is okay must be subscribers to the “if it feels good, do it” tenet of liberal philosophy.

    1. Those who think waste is okay must be subscribers to the “if it feels good, do it” tenet of liberal philosophy.

      Those who think that people should be stripped of their right to choose anything for themselves, on the pretense that they are too stupid to make the “correct” choice, must subscribe to that “the masses must be led by a vanguard party” tenet of communism.

      1. And god forbid if we mention to David Jenkins that a Free market is more efficient at conserving resources then central planning is…

        He might burst a blood vessel…that or simply lie again.

    2. As a result we now have better, more efficent refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machine’s etc.

      If that is true then why do countries that do not have those regulations also have more efficient refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machine’s etc?

      Also why were efficiencies in those same appliances being gained before Ronald Reagen ever took office?

      There has always been an incentive for consumers to save on water and save on energy. To think the technology would have stood still at 1970s efficiencies without these regulations is complete bullshit and a lie.

      1. But he mentioned named “Ronald Reagan!” so how can we disagree with that? Oh wait, this isn’t a conservative website.

      2. Mandated energy-efficient clothing and dish washers don’t clean as well as the old inefficient ones.Even the NYTs said you must spend well over $1000 for a new “luxury” washer as effective as an old Maytag or Kenmore models.

        I have an untested theory that the rise in gastro-intestinal diseases and staph infections are caused, in part, by water saving toilets and shower heads.

        It’s all OK though because those Americans past walking around in clean clothes and eating off of clean plates with less diseases didn’t have iPads like we do now

        1. It’s all OK though because those Americans past walking around in clean clothes and eating off of clean plates with less diseases didn’t have iPads like we do now

          Don’t give David Jenkins any ideas. Next he will telling us we use efficient ipods now instead of power hog record playing stereos because of the EPA.

      3. The entire “government creates innovation” meme is fucking stupid.

        When’s the last time an efficiency standard was put into law for an appliance that wasn’t already widely available in the market?

    3. The Eco Vantage incandescent pays for itself halfway through its 1000 hour lifespan…the rest is savings. When does the old incandescent pay for itself? I believe the correct answer is NEVER.

      That’s just dumb. The Econ Vantage incandescent light bulb can “pay for itself” only if you compare the cost of using it with the cost of using another source of light (you compared it to an old incandescent). But using the same logic the old incandescent light bulb “pays for itself” if you compare it to burning whale oil. It’s still cheaper not to buy any light bulb and stay in darkness. No fancy pancy light bulb can beat that.

      1. yes, Jenkins was particularly stupid with this comparison

    4. So this is where conservatism has gone, huh. The free market has no effect on improving efficiencies. If the government doesn’t do it, it can’t be done.

      But Reagan did it so its OK.

      And oh yeah, F off slaver.

      1. We prefer the Latin: Efutue, servus dominum.

    5. Is this the real David Jenkins? The one from the article?! Wow!

      Anyway, David, I don’t think most people here have issues with conservation. When performed by individuals acting of their own freewill, conservation is a wonderful thing that provides lasting benefits.

      However, I do think that nearly everyone here will disagree with your, albeit unstated, claim that Reagan’s signing the appliance energy conservation laws is why we don’t still have appliances from the 1970s.

      People, through voluntary exchanges, would have improved the quality of their appliances as their means allowed and as the advantages became clear. All federal regulations do is distort the market by foisting unpopular goods on a public that is, as yet, unwilling to pay for them voluntarily. No doubt, people will switch to CFLs, LCDs, etc as their prices drop and their flaws are fixed, but, at this time, there are still lots of issues with these bulbs (cost not always chief amongst them.)

      1. No way dude, this is why computers are still stuck in the ’70s

    6. “I assume then that Jacob still prefers inefficent 1970s era appliances to the new ones.”

      Energy consumption is only one of the many factors that determines overall value. If an older appliance looks nicer, works better, or lasts longer then, yeah, I might prefer it.

      Conservation is a wonderful, healthy and productive philosophy. Today’s environmentalists are not conservationists. They’re hoarders, misers, and scolds.

    7. Ronald Reagan signed the first appliance energy efficency standards into law. As a result we now have better, more efficent refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machine’s etc.

      Observe the Statist Fallacy in action.

      1. he is even worse then that.

        Even if his premise is correct (which it isn’t) he then jumps to another fallacy of ‘If Reagan’s standards worked then outlawing light bulbs has to work as well’

        What the fuck?

        One regulation worked one time so now all regulations will work at all times.

        David Jenkins is an idiot.

    8. More often, governmental regulation actually drives technology backwards, not forwards:

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker188.html

      I’m the guy who just last week managed to find a plumber who would increase the water pressure in my entire house, defying government controls and thereby causing all appliances to work better. It’s not surprising that this was necessary. Government regulations have made a mess of our daily lives. Whether it is banning effective products or mandating inferior functionality in our appliances and fixtures, government’s role here is indisputably to degrade our quality of life.

      So I was stunned to hear President Obama claim exactly the opposite in a speech to the US Chamber of Commerce. He ridiculed those who predicted disaster from government regulations as far back as 1848. “It didn’t happen,” he said. “None of these things came to pass.” Then he went further to say that government regulations “enhanced” industry and “made our lives better.” Regulations “often spark competition and innovation.”

      What immediately came to mind is a picture of a race in which some overlord is clamping shackles on the runner’s feet. No, that does not stop the race. The runners develop innovative ways to keep going. Nor does competition stop; it might even become more intense as runners develop new skills they would otherwise not need. All that’s true, and yet we wouldn’t look to this race as the one that is going to set new speed records. Everyone would be better off without shackles.

      But Obama’s claim really goes further than saying that somehow industry overcame the costs of regulation. He suggested that we are actually better off than we would otherwise be due to regulations. And he gave the specific example of automatically defrosting freezers. He really did. Here is the statement:

      ‘The government set modest targets a couple decades ago to start increasing efficiency over time. They were well thought through; they weren’t radical. Companies competed to hit these markers. And they hit them every time, and then exceeded them. And as a result, a typical fridge now costs half as much and uses a quarter of the energy that it once did ? and you don’t have to defrost, chipping at that stuff and then putting the warm water inside the freezer and all that stuff. It saves families and businesses billions of dollars.’

      Well, this is a precise claim, and it can be checked out. Thanks to many commentators on the Mises Blog and LvMI’s Facebook page, who did some extensive sleuthing, here is what we found.

      In 1928, the US Patent Office issued a patent for “defrosting of the cooling element or unit of a refrigerating system.” Still, invention is one thing and marketing and production is another. It took a very long time for these to be seen in real life. More and more patents were issued all throughout the 1920s and 1930s. Most likely, the innovations occurred before this time and would have sped more quickly into the consumer market without the patents, but regardless, an article in Chain Store Age in 1947 writes as follows:

      “Auto Defrost,” a recently developed electronic circuit for automatically controlling water defrosting of refrigeration coils has been announced by the Bush Mfg. Co., Hartford [founded 1907], Conn. Advantages claimed for this device are its low price, its ease of installation on existing water defrost systems, and it works independently from the refrigeration system.

      Recall that Obama spoke of how the relevant regulations came about “a couple of decades ago.” Well, his timing is off by some 63 years! What’s more, these items were already reaching a retail market by 1948.

      A March 13, 1948, edition of the Billboard posted a story datelined from Oakland, California:

      Frosted Food O’Mat, Inc., of this city is readying a new ice cream vending machine, designed for grocery stores, super markets, and department stores. Dispenser will be offered both as a coin-operated and a manual device. The vendor will hold up to six flavors, and its makers claim that it has an automatic defroster.

      By 1951, these items were already being pushed in homes. An advertisement in Popular Science reads as follows:

      Von Schrader Mfg., Co: Amazing Attachment MAKES OLD REFRIGERATORS INTO MODERN Automatic Defrosters! Thirty Million Prospects. Sell without “selling pressure” on sensational Free Trial Plan. Just plug it in and leave it. Frees women from drudgery and mess of defrosting. Saves electricity. Keeps food longer, better. Gives longer life to refrigerator ? Women buying by the thousands!

      By 1958, it seems like the great innovation was already old news. An advertisement in Life Magazine from 1958, this time from Westinghouse, references a “frost-free, Auto-Defrost Refrigerator” as if it was nearly a standard feature. The main pitch here is that the refrigerator has “cold injector” that chills food faster. It is also styled in the “Shape of Tomorrow.”

      Now, this is interesting to me since I can remember problems with freezers in my own lifetime, so it is not automatically crazy to believe that something happened in the regulatory environment of the early 1970s that would have prompted the universalization of frost-free freezers. During this period there began a government push for energy efficiency, and makers were required by government to meet certain targets, just as the president says.

      But there is a serious problem. An automatic defroster increases, not decreases, the overall energy use of refrigerators and freezers. As this government report said in 1998: “Refrigerators with automatic defrost have higher occupant consumption (on a label-normalized basis) per unit of occupant activity than refrigerators with manual defrost.”

      In other words, the more straightforward way to meet regulations would have been to take defrosting devices out, not put them in! The devices therefore exist not because of standards but in spite of them.

      All evidence suggests that the truth is precisely the opposite of what Obama claimed. Frost-free freezers came about in the normal market way. A company found a way to package it as a luxury good available in some markets. Another company saw the advance and emulated it, offering it to still other markets (though the process was likely slowed by the government regulation called the patent). Other companies saw the potential for solving a monstrous household problem and began making them more cheaply and more efficiently, as the target market gradually went from luxury to mainstream. Over time, the improved product was ubiquitous.

      The rest you should read, DJ, you being a fair minded sort, it will likely change your mind about the insidious and backasswards policies you support.

      Besides, your entire argument relies on the rather underhanded narrative that energy efficiency is an unqualified good. It distracts from the government’s quite successful efforts throughout the past forty years to stifle energy abundance. A far more progressive goal to liberate the masses, instead of the energy efficiency credo you support that is only designed to enslave us.

      1. Yes, alan, a thousand times yes. Energy abundance is key.

    9. Ronald Reagan signed the first appliance energy efficiency standards into law. As a result we now have better, more efficent refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machine’s etc.

      I heard Ronald Reagan outlawed Candles and whale oil lamps…and of course we used Candles and lamps because Coolidge outlawed torches and brazers….we used those because Thomas Jefferson outlawed the sun.

    10. Oh, well, Ronald Reagan. There you go.

    11. “”I assume then that Jacob still prefers inefficent 1970s era appliances to the new ones.””

      My guess would be he doesn’t.

      I haven’t heard about the newer appliances containing MORE hazardous materials than the older ones. The amount of Mercury in the new bulbs. Some say a hazmat team is required for lawful disposal if it breaks. Most of the new appliances work better than the old. The new lightbulbs require a warm-up time.

      If you replace the old with something that is better or equal to in performace, people will buy it. It can’t be just about energy efficency. People have legitimate complaints about some of the new bulbs and prefer the older ones.

    12. Thank you David for posting one of the only smart comments on this board. A free market is great, but it does need regulation. I’m so sick and tired of these utopian psychopaths who think that any government regulation is bad.

      We’re talking about light bulbs people! This is not a communist plot!

      1. Wickard was about wheat. And now we’re being marched off to buy health insurance.

    1. Commerce Clause trumps EVERYTHING!

    2. Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause

    3. Is there anything that the Commerce Clause does not trump?

      Anything at all?

      1. Gun-free school zones.

      2. The right of Congress to mandate ownership of assault weapons, for example — I’m sure the Douchecunt-in-Chief would see it that way, anyway.

        1. You’re talking about Rule of Law where principles apply equally.
          If Congress can mandate ownership of X, then they can mandate ownership of Y.
          Our principals base that upon what X and Y are, not on principle.

          Rule of Law has been replaced by Rule of Man.

          1. Yeah. Jesus Christ, I fucking hate Congress.

    4. Epps also teaches creative writing. Maybe this whole series is him limbering up to write an unauthorized squeal to A Confederacy of Dunces. With him as the president of the Confederacy.

    5. I love Epps’ “Myths” sections if only because JLT’s responses are worth the suffering that Epps inflicts upon m.

    6. The enumerated powers trump the 10th Amendment, by its own terms.

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power. Ergo . . . .

      The problem isn’t that the Commerce Clause trumps the 10th, its that the Commerce Clause has expanded far beyond its intended scope.

  17. I gotta smile at how all TEAM BLUE! rails against teh corporashunz!!11!!1 evil intentions, but don’t see any evil intentions in these types of laws, which are created and lobbied for by teh corporashunz!!11!!1 Maybe they think teh corporashunz!!11!!1 woke up this morning and decided to help teh environment!!!1!!1 out of teh goodnes of their hearts. There’s no way this law would actually help teh corporashunz!!11!!1 bottom line!

    1. So true. I’ve asked several of my leftist friends what they think about the current administration’s chummy relationship with GE, GM, etc. They basically don’t give a shit. It’s only bad when TEAM RED is handing out the favors.

      1. To quote sometime libertarian Bill Maher, both parties are bought, but the guys who own the Democrats aren’t as scary.

        1. Bill Maher is as much a libertarian as you are, Tony. I can call a horse an eagle but that won’t make it fly.

        2. “sometime libertarian Bill Maher”

          Maher isn’t any type of libertarian – sometime or otherwise.

          What he is is a full time asshole.

          1. Yeah, also known as comedian. Why don’t you guys have any of those?

            1. Yeah, also known as comedian.

              Bill Maher’s a comedian?!?!? Since when??

  18. Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause Commerce Clause BITCHES!

  19. I’m lucky to get a year out of a CFL. They seem to last only a little longer than an incandescent. It may have something to do with my hundred year-old knob-and-tube wiring or maybe the simple fact that I turn them off and on a lot.

    1. This is like complaining that your brakes wear out fast when you ride the brake and constantly jackrabbit.

      If you use the things properly they will last. It’s true of most mechanical and electronic items; just because CFLs are relatively newfangled and require unlearning old habits doesn’t make them a ripoff.

      1. You mean like using your brakes every time you have to stop. Instead of using the clutch and wearing that out.

      2. Again, the point is, regardless of if they are a good deal or not, why is the government getting involved in telling me that I may not use them?!?!

      3. It would clearly be in the government’s interest to require homes be retrofitted with centrally controlled light switches to prevent such ignorant and wasteful misuse.

        “If you use the things properly they will last.”

        We do use them properly. They just don’t design them properly. And why should they? It’s much cheaper to build an inferior product and have the government remove the competition.

        1. ^ This. Do business schools now offer classes about getting in bed with politicians?

  20. Also it’s generally not a good thing to have miniature space heaters running all over your house on those hot summer days and nights. So not only do incandescents waste energy by not being efficient, they also waste energy when you have to turn on the AC to make up for their heating effect.

    1. I generally don’t have lights on during the day, and rarely run my AC at night. There’s also this season called Winter.

      1. In winter you probably use a furnace to heat your home rather than bulbs. The furnace also has the added benefit of being able to turn off in the summer.

        1. But I get bonus heat from the incandescent that I wouldn’t from a CFL. And, no, I rarely use my inefficient central heating furnace. Space heating is much more efficient for a single person.

    2. Given that some of the things I have in my house actually require the heat from an incandescent bulb to work correctly, this is kind of a specious argument. Plus, I live in Houston. An incadescent bulb is peanuts compared to the thermonuclear fury of the sun.

    3. Who in the hell leaves light bulbs on all over his house on hot summer days? I don’t know how the seasons work where you are but here in Texas we have this big ball of fusing hydrogen that provides light during the day and far past 8:00PM, almost to 9:00 at the start of summer.

      On hot summer nights, we sleep.

      That leaves a pretty small window when artificial light is required but, even then, it is used where needed, not all over the house. It’s possible I am wrong, but the heat added during those times is probably rounding error compared to the heat generated when we cook dinner (let alone the heat generated by our computers).

      For the most part, the main place artificial light is useful is in the bathrooms, but unless the light is left on for the sole sake of preserving the bulb, that’s where CFLs go to die.

      1. but unless the light is left on for the sole sake of preserving the bulb

        Ahhh, the point that Tulpa and the other authoritarian lovers constantly dance around.

        It uses more energy to leave the bulb on for long periods of time rather than turn them off.

        CFL bulbs are wasteful and poisonous. All so bulb manufacturers and criminal politicians can steal more money.

    4. Do you share genes with plants?

      1. Eat your greens
        Don’t forget to eat, your greens
        Eat a bunch of these
        And never sin
        With sauerkraut

  21. This would all be a pretty compelling argument if it weren’t for the massive subsidies and externalities enjoyed by the energy industry.

    If you want to eliminate energy standards, that’s fine, but eliminate with them the right of a power plant to ever emit any pollution whatsoever. Same standard for coal extraction: absolutely no measurable environmental effects ever.

    Would that absolutely devastate the economy? Yes. But purity is a bitch.

  22. So how well do the current LED bulbs work? Are they worth the premium over CFL?

    1. The story is that they have an actual 10,000 hr life even when used like incandescents (ie, turned off and on), however, the ones that cast the same light area as an incandescent cost something like $35. Sure, they use 1/15th the wattage and last 10x as long, but it just barely breaks even. I have heard that in October a startup will drop the price to $20 with that price falling to $15 in 12-18 months. That might be worthwhile, but… idk. Light is much closer to incandescent. Not as cold.

      1. Afaik, try still have the same spectrum problems as CFLs.

  23. The history of the present [government]is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    For transporting us [and others] beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

    Taking our land and giving it to private intrests

    Forcing us into commerce against our wishes

    Preventing the people from using the illumination of their choosing in their own home.

    I’m sure we can come up with a few more. This is sad.

    1. Except the slave-owning, sexist 18th-century rich white guys had more guts, principle, and integrity in each of their toes than the whole fucking political population of the world has today. As much as I wish for a restoration of the republic (by force, if necessary, which it is), I can’t help but wonder whether there are no Founders, no minutemen, of that sort in the 21st century, at least not enough to make a difference.

      1. They were wild.
        We are domesticated.

        1. It’s probably one of the reasons I’ll be hanging a Betsy Ross flag on my porch once it’s repaired instead of the 50-star.

      2. There are, but they’re branded as “crazies”. And most aren’t rich or politically influential like George Washington or Ben Franklin or John Hancock.

        1. If you are rich and politically influential, why would you be critical of the current system that allowed you to become rich and politically influential?

      3. If we were to actually hold a Constitutional Convention, I think that might just change the mindset enough that if/when the Chonys and Pelosis and Obamas prevail at the Convention, states in strong disagreement might just have the space to secede.

        And I don’t think there would be a civil war over it this time, either.

        1. “And I don’t think there would be a civil war over it this time, either.”

          Why not?

          1. The masses who won’t fight back won’t fight back then either.

          2. People are too busy just trying to feed their families to give up their jobs and go fight… for what?

            So they can be killed and then nobody will provide for their family?

        2. If we were to hold a Constitutional Convention, the move would be towards textbook socialism.

          1. Unfortunately, I have to agree with this .

            1. Me too.

          2. I ritually sacrifice kittens to Cthulhu on a daily basis to prevent a Constitutional Convention from occurring in my lifetime. I don’t want to be stuck with the bad ideas of this misbegotten generation we happen to be born and have them engraved in stone.

            Too many conservatives don’t realize that once a convention is in order, it does not have to stick to the agenda that was advocated for its declaration.

            1. Oops. Warty, I don’t mean kitten kittens, like the fury little mammals of which you are so fond.

              Kittens is my pet name for crackwhores because they get so scratchy and ferrel when you tie them down to the alter.

              1. Don’t fuck with me and kitties.

                1. Believe you, me, if you tried to offer an Elder God a kitten as a sacrifice they would just laugh in your face, and eat you instead. Gotta be crackho taint, nothing else will suffice.

            2. H. P. Lovecraft would not approve of the sacrifice of kittens. I’ll ask you to (re)read The Cats of Ulthar as a useful warning.

              1. Quite right & Understood. Today, my head hangs low. Brothers, I am Fail.

    2. Thought of some more

      Prevents the recording of public actions of public officials

      Declares secret without oversight, information of import to the citizenry

      Restricts or bans the growing of plants for food and medicine.

      Subjects travelers on private transport to unreasonable, invasive and humiliating searches.

      1. Taxes the citizens of the States, and then requires the States to pass Laws as condition for the return of the funds.

      2. Illegitimately imposes upon personal armaments the police power of the state. That one’s pretty big for a JeffMad republican like me.

  24. OT: Guys, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_(TV_series)

    Will something like this ever happen?

  25. Over at FrumForum, David Jenkins says the whole exercise is a charade, because “there is no light bulb ‘ban.'” Instead there are federal energy efficiency standards that will make the least expensive, most popular bulbs illegal. See the difference?

    In Orwellianspeak, there is a difference: One is a ban, the other is making it unavailable to anyone. See? SEE?

  26. “Even if the calculations about long-term savings (which depend on longevity assumptions that in my experience are highly exaggerated) are accurate, people should be free to pass them up in favor of more money in their pockets now”

    Not to mention pass them up in favor of a better QUALITY of light produced – particulary for reading lamps.

  27. Here’s a quote from Steven Chu about the light bulb ban:

    “We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.”

    What an infurating mindset.

    1. “Infuriating”? Boy, you’re one generous guy. That’s lightly put.

      1. Chu should have choked on a hotdog on the 4th of July.

        What the hell were some people celebrating, indepenence from liberty?

    2. Not really. Stoplights are about taking away a choice that lets people barrel through intersections whenever they please.

      1. If some laws are good, shitloads of laws are better!

      2. Stoplights are a codification of a self-organized phenomenon that works to the mutual benefit of all drivers.
        It’s not in anyone’s interest to get into an accident. Alternating streams of traffic evolve even at intersections with no stop sign.

        1. Then you agree that codification helps.

  28. In the screen-cap, Edison seems to be wearing a yarmulke.

  29. Even if the calculations about long-term savings (which depend on longevity assumptions that in my experience are highly exaggerated) are accurate, people should be free to pass them up in favor of more money in their pockets now. Otherwise there is no end to the purchase decisions the government might choose to override in the name of saving people money over the long term.

    When I say buy, you will buy. When I say sell, you will sell. I know what you are thinking, you will change your thinking.

  30. Oh who gives a shit. Energy production is generally shared. If you want to hike my costs up for the sake of being a curmudgeon, may I suggest a stockpile. Sorry if the 100-year-old version burns out too quickly to make the supply last.

    1. It’s for your own fucking good, you fucking hatemongers.

    2. It’s for your own fucking good, you hatemongers.

      1. I can definitely see a libertarian case to be made here. I’d rather you guys focus on stuff like this than dicking around in economics as if you had a clue. Still, I installed the new bulbs the day I moved in to my apartment and haven’t had to change one in 5 years. What’s not to like?

    3. My using more ‘lectricity drives your cost up? Do tell.

      1. There’s only so much coal.

        1. Actually, coal is abundant and will be for centuries. You should pick a better processed fossil for Malthusian asides.

  31. The lighting is also atrocious in many of the cheaper CFLs. In the last few months my apartment high-rise has started switching over bulbs to CFLs and they are mostly buying the cheaper fishtank-blue style bulb. They are in a few hallways, and the freight elevator, but they also switched over the bathroom vanity lights to the horrible blue CFLs.

    I can also see a bunch of apartments in nearby high-rises are using the same ghastly fluorescent color. For the last six months nearby apartments have starting turning that horrible blue, and it’s easily distinguishable from the lighting that a TV throws. It makes an apartment look like a human terrarium.

  32. I do not support the ban.

    However, personally, I have already switched most of my lightbulbs to CFLs.

    Contrary to popular belief, you can get them in warm yellow colors. I don’t buy the bright white ones.

    The main advantage isn’t the electricity, it’s that they last several times as long as incandescents, in my experience. It’s the longer replacement time that cancels the cost.

    Not to mention the benefit of avoiding the hassle of having a bulb go out and having to replace it. I hate taking down ceiling lamps to reeplace the bulbs.

  33. Lots of anecdotes in this thread.
    And lots of bad advice from Tulpa.

    Reminds me of the switch away from rotary dialing phones.

  34. Its not burn-time that takes bulbs (fluorescent or incandescent) out, its on/off cycles. CFL’s are more-or-less just as susceptible to this problem as incandescents, but their ramp-time is longer.

    So something like a closet or pantry is great place for incandescents. They’re on hardly at all in total time, but they get cycled a lot and when you flip switch they’re instantly ‘on.’ None of this three-minute warm up shtick the CFL’s kick out.

    But either way, its stupid to regulate a goddamned light bulb. Really? Isn’t there better shit to do? What’s funny is here in Santa Monica all the grape-nuts probably love the CFL ban because it ‘saves the earth’ and then they all fire up pretty scented ‘organic’ mood candles (seriously they’re all over around here) and crank more carbon and heat-per-lumen than any electric light this side of lightning.

    Its time to ban those carbon-whores Yankee Candle peddling their antique junk. It would save like fifty billion tons of carbon a year or something I’m sure.

  35. If you look at the D Jenkins “Not a Ban article”
    near the beginning and also at the end , I also refute what D Jenkins says

    Just 2 examples, showing up the Deception that’s going on

    1.It is a BAN:

    All known ? and New Incandescents ? will effectively be banned before 2020,
    see the 2007 Energy Act
    45 lumen per watt minimum specification, which no incandescent can meet,
    and which the profit-seeking CFL-pushing manufacturers behind the ban
    would be unlikely to pursue anyway.
    http://freedomlightbulb.blogsp…..s-ban.html

    2. The supposed ENERGY savings are also not there
    (only c2% grid electricity savings, see the DOE etc data
    http://ceolas.net/#li171x ),
    – and even the savings were there,
    there are much better and more relevant energy savings in Electricity
    Generation and Grid Distribution as well as Consumption, as described
    on the website.

  36. RE “Is Not a Ban”
    for clarfication, the Energy Act has 2 phases:

    Yes, the new incandescent bulbs pass the first phase requirement, but not the second phase
    (more on the link provided)

  37. To prove a point…

    All the talk about “New Incandescents being allowed” is wrong in an (at the latest) 2020 perspective:

    “BACKSTOP REQUIREMENT? if the final rule [not later than January 1,
    2017] does not produce savings that are greater than or equal to the
    savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt,
    effective beginning January 1, 2020, the Secretary shall prohibit the
    sale of any general service lamp that does not meet a minimum efficacy
    standard of 45 lumens per watt”

    The EIA (see their press releases)
    also confirm that any lamp on the market in 2020
    “will have to be as efficient as CFLs” by such time.

    MORE: The basic intent of replacing incandescent technology is also
    made clear in section 321 of the Act:
    “The Secretary of Energy shall report to Congress on the time frame
    for commercialization of lighting to REPLACE incandescent AND halogen
    incandescent lamp technology”
    (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007/Title III/Subtitle B/Section 321)

    Note: It says “replace” not “improve”….
    .

  38. Those interested in the actual regulation with links to relevant sections can see http://ceolas.net/#li01inx

    It also updates on the 7 US state repeal bills
    (legislated Texas June 17th) and the Canadian Government’s 2014 delay plans
    .

  39. Reducing power consumption is obviously a worthwhile goal. But before telling people what light sources they can and cannot use, we should consider the effect those light sources have on human visual development. (“Think of the children!”) I’m surprised I haven’t heard anyone mention the spectral power distributions (SPDs) of light sources in this debate.

    You can compare SPDs of some different light sources at, for example, http://research.ng-london.org……?page=spd. Select “Update graph” to choose the data series to chart. You can overlay multiple SPD curves for comparison. The curves are all normalized sensibly [ http://research.ng-london.org……lising_SPD ].

    Among the data sets provided there, these light sources seemed closest to daylight in their classes, in arguably decreasing order of daylight approximation:

    Nature Studio2 Filtered Daylight [daylight baseline]
    Solux 12V Diachroic [tungsten halogen 12 VDC MR16]
    LSI LumeLEX 2040-C4M2-6S [LED + cold phosphor fixture]
    Philips 50Par30L-WFL40 [tungsten halogen PAR30]
    Cooper DL11-WS-WW [multi-die LED fixture]
    GE F40W/AD [fluorescent T12]
    Pro-Lite Daylight SRI-30W Par 30 [compact fluorescent PAR30]

    Compare them and decide which light source you’d choose to supply to a human vision system that evolved under daylight.

    The Solux’s (tungsten halogen) SPD looks great, but Solux lamps are only available as 120 VAC PAR and 12 VDC MR16. The LSI’s (LED + cold phosphor) SPD looks good, but it’s a big museum light fixture. The Philips’s (tungsten halogen) SPD looks OK, and tungsten halogen lamps are widely available in a bunch of common form factors. The Cooper’s (LED) SPD looks mediocre, and it’s another exotic lamp form factor. The GE’s (fluorescent) SPD looks bad, and the Pro-Lite’s (compact fluorescent) SPD looks terrible.

    In short: tungsten halogen > tungsten > LED > fluorescent.

    I wouldn’t be in a hurry to eradicate tungsten lamps. LED and fluorescent lamps have a ways to go before approaching the SPD of tungsten lamps.

    We have young children, and I’m concerned about the effect the light sources we use in the house have on their developing visual systems. The human visual system evolved under daylight. It seems reasonable to prefer light sources that more closely approximate the SPD of daylight. So we use tungsten halogen lamps throughout the house. We won’t change over to LED or compact fluorescent lamps until they offer SPDs substantially closer to daylight’s.

  40. Dear,
    As one of your loyal readers, I saw this post very helpful.
    We are the leading wholesale online marketplace, and we’d like to know if we can have a sponsored text link from this page pointing to our “LED light” product category page.
    If yes, please reply me with the price quote; if no, thank you for your time and keep up with the good job.
    My e-mail:ellen19890605@gmail.com Look forward to hearing from you!
    Regards,
    Ellen

  41. Dear,
    As one of your loyal readers, I saw this post very helpful.
    We are the leading wholesale online marketplace, and we’d like to know if we can have a sponsored text link from this page pointing to our “LED light” product category page.
    If yes, please reply me with the price quote; if no, thank you for your time and keep up with the good job.
    My e-mail:ellen19890605@gmail.com Look forward to hearing from you!
    Regards,
    Ellen

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.