New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

[idleprocess]

Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

With regard to mercury polluting CFL's vs inefficient use of electricity, more facts: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

Still better off saving electricity by using a more energy efficient solution.

It never ceases to amaze me how people will fixate on trace sources of some externality/pollution they disapprove of while willfully ignoring sources that contribute the overwhelming majority of it. In this case, the irony is exceptionally delicious.

 

[flashflood]

It never ceases to amaze me how people will fixate on trace sources of some externality/pollution they disapprove of while willfully ignoring sources that contribute the overwhelming majority of it. In this case, the irony is exceptionally delicious.

You mean the way people focus on nuclear waste while ignoring the 2,000-fold greater radioactive burden dumped directly into the atmosphere due to burning coal instead? Totally agree. If we had not gotten our collective panties in a bunch after Three Mile Island, we would have replaced much of that truly filthy coal with clean, carbon-free, mercury-free nuclear power by now. Even if you assume that we can never avoid the occasional nuclear meltdown, we'd still have a far cleaner planet trading coal for nuclear.

So yes, mercury in fish is a bigger problem than mercury in CFLs -- but only because we burn coal so much coal, which is the main source of mercury in the oceans. It is indeed ironic that the most polluting activity in the world has been protected by the anti-nuclear greens who profess to save the planet.

 

[brickbat]

Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

Are you insane!?

Of course he's not insane. Just another graduate from the Limbaugh Institute

 

[Vesper]

Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

Of course he's not insane. Just another graduate from the Limbaugh Institute

Guys, keep it civil.

At then end of the day this debate will all go away when LED bulbs are up to speed. Why are incandescent flashlights going the way of the dinosaur? It's not because the government legislated them away. Let the free market work.

 

[alpg88]

Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

Perhaps the 30% figure comes from industrial usage which is estimated as being as high as 35%. This report from the DOE shows home usage at an average 11%: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/corporate/bt_stateindustry.pdf

i wouldn't worry about industrial lighting, since it is not incandescent for the most part anyway, I've been to many industrial facilities they are either fluorescent or hps\mh lights. nycmta track crew still uses paddles with 5 rough service bulbs, that they use in the tunnels, hooking them to third rail (600v), i don't see them use anything else in near future for that.

 

[Harold_B]

Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

To be perfectly honest I don't worry much about most of it. The 35% figure is from a reference site and it kind of surprised me given the juice that industrial motors suck! My main concern is my electric bill and how much I can impact the total and anything I can do with a positive impact on the planet and for society is a secondary bonus. I am selfish but not to the point of being short sighted. Sometimes the benefit to society outweighs the benefit to my pocketbook and therefore my conscience won't allow me to do otherwise.

 

[flashflood]

Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

So what you are saying is that the goverment should not regulate anything?

- No meat inspected to ensure it is safe

Yes, exactly. I identified two specific, on-point instances of government intervention that exacerbated the problem they were trying to solve. Therefore, clearly, I don't want meat inspections.

Get real, indeed.

 

[LuxLuthor]

Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

ROFL! So predictable are the responses...especially the need to make cheap associations because I referenced hearing about this on Rush Limbaugh. Typical feeble minded attempt to dismiss anyone who holds differing viewpoints, or questions propaganda. Did I say I believed anything that Rush Limbaugh says? I also regularly watch Rachel Maddow, Bill O'Reilly, read the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Reuters, BBC, NewsDaily, WND, Politico.com, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Media Matters, Slashdot, TheHill.com, and several other sources. Now what does that make me?

Marcturus, I don't buy the practical criticism of rough service vs. general service bulbs because I have both, in two adjacent, built-in overhead sockets. When I turn on the 12 x 100 Watt bulb switch, and fill my room with glorious bright white full spectrum incandescent lighting, there is no discernible color difference between the two bulb types, so on practical observation, the speculation of extra filament supports changing the heat/color is not necessarily valid, depending on the support composition. There can also be different alloys and strand thicknesses of the rough service bulbs that contribute to their practical function. I find them a perfect substitute for the general use 750-1250 hour rated bulbs. I am not saying your points are altogether wrong, as I have not done the research to determine the nuances you raised, but on a practical, observational basis they don't hold water.

Harold_B, thank you for that reference. I would want to check out the veracity of how the determinations were made, since there is little source references presented, and it is being issued from a govt. department with a self interest in making the case for regulations/bans it is enforcing. Their theory of incan causing mercury release is based upon "The US EPA 2005 National Emissions Inventory" (not their more recent 2008 version) where they claim:

Coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions to the air in the United States, accounting for over 50 percent of all domestic human-caused mercury emissions.

Note my emphasis on "human-caused" because I did not see what is the overall mercury emissions from non-human sources to know what percent of the total is from human-caused. Then, one has to make this whole other leap in logic that my light bulbs are causing more mercury pollution than CFL's because all utility power generation facilities are stuck with the same dirty coal sources. This report ignores Clean Coal Technology restrictions, use of Natural Gas, nuclear, and other rapidly developing greener supply side improvements--because they want the public to accept their incandescent ban and justify whey they should buy CFL bulbs.

Obviously, the more electric power generation shifts away from mercury emissions from coal power plants, the less their argument in favor of CFL's holds water. I question their validity and objectivity on this one point.

SemiMan, the heart of this light bulb issue is based on people being forced to conserve energy because there is a finite supply, and some types are better than others. I don't accept that basic premise, and believe that there are virtually unlimited energy resources available (i.e. nuclear, solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, wave, etc.) for the foreseeable future.

To force people into the conservation side of managing the energy needs equation, they have to come up with things like not just global warming, but man-made global warming which I also do not buy because there are so many well-respected experts that have been ignored, so many lies & cover-ups exposed, and way too much politics driving it all.

My main objection is to govt. deciding what is best for everyone, and enforcing their bans, and forcing conservation as the main way of approaching our energy needs.

jtr1962, we need to quit meeting like this.

I'm beginning to think with all your talk about orange light bulbs that your house must have been at the end of the electrical grid, and/or using antique, high resistance wiring where you only had 90 volts coming in. The electrical grid has been stressed for a long time and needs to be seriously upgraded with increasing population demands. It won't be incandescent light bulbs that crashes the grid. My vote is on terrorism.

Seriously, I don't recall ever having seen an OBJECTIVE study that looks at what percent of the total electrical consumption comes from indoor residential lighting. Looking at this source:

[h=2]6.2 The Importance of Lighting[/h] Lighting uses about 18 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S., and another 4 to 5 percent goes to remove the waste heat generated by those lights. Lighting in commercial buildings accounts for close to 71 percent of overall lighting electricity use in the U.S.

If 71% is commercial, I'm guessing we must then assume 29% is residential lighting, ignoring non-commercial governmental, street, and other types of non-residential lighting.

OK, then 29% residential x 18% of electricity generated = 5.22% of total electricity generated for lighting is from residential. But we don't know how they determine that 29% residential lighting electricity. Did they measure the real time electrical consumption in a statistically significant sample with all the lights on, and then off at night, and factor in the night time heaters, air conditioners that may also be running? Did they go in and count actual inside light bulbs, verifying their wattage, and have people keep logs of which lights are turned on for how long? If you don't track down studies and look at this level of verifiable details, they could say anything they wanted.

 

[LuxLuthor]

Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

Guys, keep it civil.

At then end of the day this debate will all go away when LED bulbs are up to speed. Why are incandescent flashlights going the way of the dinosaur? It's not because the government legislated them away. Let the free market work.

That is the heart of my argument. If and when LED's work, fit inside of built in receptacles, give proper spectrum, figure out their heatsink issues, and become affordable, they will likely be worthwhile alternatives....and it is happening as you said based on free market choices. Why do you think the Chevy Volt is such a disaster? Besides the battery fires, the main reason is that it is not market driven. It is another Nanny-State failed project.

Also for the record, I am not against government inspections and regulations....but they should be done as sparingly and judiciously as possible. Was a total ban on incandescent bulbs necessary to solve the issue? Nope. Neither was the ban on manufacturing larger gallons per flush toilets--nation wide. We have NEVER EVER had a water ban or shortage in southeast CT where I live, and we are not going to be sending our water to Colorado or Texas. That is another example of ignorant federal politicians. It would have made a lot more sense to charge people in water starved areas astronomical prices for water delivery, to discourage over population of those areas. Exceptions could have been given for indigent or emergency scenarios. Instead, the govt. enforces a ban that impacts people that are not affected. Loss of freedom, loss of market driving forces.

 

[LuxLuthor]

Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

Lux, perhaps you would like to do some research before spouting off your mouth. How rough service bulbs are constructed and/or defined is irrelevant. My statement, that they are brutally ineffecient is fact. It is not disputable. The BEST rough service bulb makes perhaps 1150 lumens, with many less than that. The average 100W standard incandescent makes 1600+ lumens. That means 30% more energy to do the same thing.

Individual light usage does matter. To paraphrase an add that is on the radio today, there is no such thing as small billions. That would be billions of personal bulbs just in North America. That makes for a large impact if they are replaced.

These are the bulbs I was comparing, as I have not received mine from Newtronics.com yet. These are GE 1260L 750hrs vs. Litetronics Super Service 1100L 20,000hrs.

My beef with your comments is that rough service bulbs are defined as being designed to protect against vibration and industrial stresses, which you said nothing about, and which is their most important aspect, which is why I knew you did not know the facts about them. Their design purpose is not to run at lower voltages and cooler temps as the primary way they function and survive longer in rough service scenarios. There is a significant portion of their extended life that is a direct function of the internal components and alloys. These have 7 support filament mounting, triple alloy tungsten filament (that is thicker and longer), three separate getters, and brass base to prevent corrosion.

I was not using 1600+ Lumen bulbs, and it does not mean 30% more energy to do the same thing since I just put each bulb in a lamp hooked inline to a Seasonic Volt-Amp-Watt-Hz-KWH measuring display. The 750Hr GE bulb I was using registered 122.2V & 101 Watts. The LiteTronics 20,000Hr bulb registered 122.3V & 102Watts. Same energy being used with an adequate amount of white light coming from fixture.

 

[JohnR66]

Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

I use mainly CFL (until LEDs get lower prices). I do still use incans in some places, but I use these halogen equivalents.

The light is a bit whiter than standard incans, but with a boost in efficiency. At least to my eyes, the 130 volt bulbs are dimmer and more orange. A 130v 60w par would probably make 500 lumens compared to this 60w IR technology halogen.

 

[idleprocess]

Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

When CFL's first hit the market en masse some 10+ years ago, statistics coming out of the DOE and other sources put lighting at around 25% of residential energy usage. Those statistics have steadily shrunk to figure closer to 10%, representing a 60% reduction (assuming the figures are solid and the reduction is real). This suggests a few possibilities:

• Alternative technologies have already been embraced by the markets and this apparent reduction is genuine
• The data has been refined over time and its initial estimates were too high
• Some combination of the two

Regardless, residential lighting is considerably less of a low-hanging fruit in terms of efficiency gains than it used to be (or was previously thought to be) and has entered the diminishing returns phase.

Heating and air conditioning are probably the next lowest-hanging fruit. Payoff can occur in a few years, but will face even stiffer challenges convincing consumers to spend money up-front on more efficient appliances and insulation in order to realize operational savings.

I failed that challenge myself in 2009 - had I chosen a more efficient (and appreciably more expensive) air conditioning compressor, I likely would have paid down the premium during last summer's brutal heat when my electrical bills were stiff (and be on the positive side for the rest of its operational life). Live and learn...

 

[jtr1962]

Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

Heating and air conditioning are probably the next lowest-hanging fruit. Payoff can occur in a few years, but will face even stiffer challenges convincing consumers to spend money up-front on more efficient appliances and insulation in order to realize operational savings.

While we're on that subject, I don't understand why brand new apartment buildings still have openings for individual air conditioners. It would be far more efficient (and probably cost effective) to have a single geothermal heat pump unit handle heating and cooling of the entire building. Each apartment would have a thermostat in each room which simply opens and closes the appropriate vents to heat or cool to the desired temperature. From an aesthetic standpoint, it would look a heck of lot nicer as well not having walls full of rectangular holes. If we're going to legislate anything, then legislate away stand alone AC units in places where they really don't make much sense. Start with new construction first, and then move on to require retrofitting of older apartment buildings (where practical-I realize some buildings would cost more to retrofit than would be worthwhile).

And as for lighting, no reason new construction should be using screw bulb fixtures. You could put purpose-built LED fixtures in every room instead. In fact, that could be a selling point-move here and never change a light bulb again. The only caveat is the fixtures would need to have adjustable color temperature (from maybe 2500K up to 6500K) to account for individual lighting preferences, and also would need to be dimmable. With LEDs though that's easy to engineer.

When CFL's first hit the market en masse some 10+ years ago, statistics coming out of the DOE and other sources put lighting at around 25% of residential energy usage. Those statistics have steadily shrunk to figure closer to 10%, representing a 60% reduction (assuming the figures are solid and the reduction is real).

The ~60% reduction in residential lighting use these statistics allude to can easily have been caused by people just using CFLs in a few of their most used fixtures. The cost of perhaps a half dozen CFLs is negligible in any household budget. Based on what I see going for walks at night (lots of windows lit at color temperatures which can only be CFL of some type) I do in fact think that at least in the markets where electricity costs a lot, there has been widespread CFL adoption over the last decade. Helping the matter has been the fact that CFLs have reached near price parity with incandescents. It also means unfortunately that the TCO equation changes for LED bulbs. Right now, if you're replacing incandescent, the TCO of an LED bulb over its lifetime is less. If you're replacing a CFL, the answer isn't as clear cut, although LED bulbs could offer tangible advantages over CFL (instant on, better CRI, dimmability) even if their TCO is the same.

 

[idleprocess]

Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

Further wandering afield OT...

While we're on that subject, I don't understand why brand new apartment buildings still have openings for individual air conditioners. It would be far more efficient (and probably cost effective) to have a single geothermal heat pump unit handle heating and cooling of the entire building. Each apartment would have a thermostat in each room which simply opens and closes the appropriate vents to heat or cool to the desired temperature. From an aesthetic standpoint, it would look a heck of lot nicer as well not having walls full of rectangular holes. If we're going to legislate anything, then legislate away stand alone AC units in places where they really don't make much sense. Start with new construction first, and then move on to require retrofitting of older apartment buildings (where practical-I realize some buildings would cost more to retrofit than would be worthwhile).

I suspect it depends on the target market for apartments. In most places I've been, most apartments are built as second-choice housing for people not sure of where they want to live or presently unable to afford it. The operators know this, so whatever amenities they offer on top of X bedrooms Y baths and Z extras are superficial and don't really contribute to making the apartment building/complex somewhere that people want to live long-term.

The typical apartment complex has seems to have more features in common with a hotel than a quality long-term residence - high density, cheap construction, and marginal livability. The complexes are built to maximize ROI for their owners and are typically sold every few years - externalities hustled off on the tenants being advantageous to the operator.

In my area of the country, there are very few apartments with what I would consider quality design - and fewer with simultaneous quality location - that I would consider as a permanent residence. Even most of the high-end places with sizzle are aimed at the young and trendy, who don't seem to stay for long. Even the bizarre "urban lofts" I'm seeing all over the place (typically located a long ways from the urban core, paired with similarly-trendy development) seem like a short-lived phenomenon since the residents still need cars and they typically clash with their surroundings in addition to offering terrible value. The goal in the DFW area for most is detached standalone home ownership, with better quality of living.

So from a renter's perspective, they seem to mostly look at how much they're out every month in rent and ignore utility costs. It's foolish - when I was renting I paid more in utilities than I ever did for my house - but seems to be the norm. It might be winning strategy in markets where renting an apartment is seen as long-term living (ie, high-density cities), but I suspect it just won't be a winning concept in much of the rest of the country.

I'm watching a large complex going up a few miles from my house and noticed that they're not only locating all the air conditioning compressors on the roofs of the buildings, but also putting them on the south side with blinds that appear to restrict airflow... Makes me wonder if they're getting a kickback from the local electrical utilities.

And as for lighting, no reason new construction should be using screw bulb fixtures. You could put purpose-built LED fixtures in every room instead. In fact, that could be a selling point-move here and never change a light bulb again. The only caveat is the fixtures would need to have adjustable color temperature (from maybe 2500K up to 6500K) to account for individual lighting preferences, and also would need to be dimmable. With LEDs though that's easy to engineer.

Could be done and is being done are two appreciably different things. Commercial LED fixtures are just beginning to encroach on linear florescent - the TCO case just isn't certain nor are the impressive lifespans claimed.

I think it's going to take many years for the purpose-built fixture market to work out the kinks, set some standards, then prove their longevity before we see uptake in the residential market. I know that many regulars here could hack together something reasonably-priced that should last decades, but the retail cost of anything analogous to those fixtures that could be certified and warranty-able would be a bit high given what the market is currently paying.

 

[flashflood]

Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

I'm watching a large complex going up a few miles from my house and noticed that they're not only locating all the air conditioning compressors on the roofs of the buildings, but also putting them on the south side with blinds that appear to restrict airflow... Makes me wonder if they're getting a kickback from the local electrical utilities.

A less cynical possibility: perhaps they're trying to place the coldest air near the hottest rooms, to prevent the usual problem of the north side freezing while the south side roasts.

 

[idleprocess]

Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

A less cynical possibility: perhaps they're trying to place the coldest air near the hottest rooms, to prevent the usual problem of the north side freezing while the south side roasts.

Eh, they're individual compressors that likely won't have trouble refrigerating each unit to whatever the thermostat is set to.

Most likely the south side was chosen because that's the low-visibility side of the complex.

 

[LuxLuthor]

Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

While we're on that subject, I don't understand why brand new apartment buildings still have openings for individual air conditioners. It would be far more efficient (and probably cost effective) to have a single geothermal heat pump unit handle heating and cooling of the entire building. Each apartment would have a thermostat in each room which simply opens and closes the appropriate vents to heat or cool to the desired temperature. From an aesthetic standpoint, it would look a heck of lot nicer as well not having walls full of rectangular holes. If we're going to legislate anything, then legislate away stand alone AC units in places where they really don't make much sense. Start with new construction first, and then move on to require retrofitting of older apartment buildings (where practical-I realize some buildings would cost more to retrofit than would be worthwhile).

This is a comment typical of looking at things the way Washington DC politicians, DOE & EPA officials, and those who bought the man-made GW ruse. You are mapping your logic, aesthetics, and then feeling that your wishes should most certainly be imposed on the peon public. You don't live in the real world where people cannot buy enough groceries to feed their family, have cancelled their vacations because the price of gas is too high, can't find a job because not enough is being done to resolve unemployment. The last thing most people care about is having openings or AC units hanging out, or upgrading a major part of their HVAC systems....unless you personally are going to pay to have them all replaced--and I don't think you are making that much money.

Now, I happen to proudly be in the self-made 1% of affluence, and CHOSE....let me say that word again....CHOSE to replace my 35 year old American Standard natural gas hot water boiler, circulated by two electric motors around the cast iron baseboard with a Navien CH-180 which also let me replace my 60 gallon gas hot water heater, giving me as much continuous hot water on demand that I desire. It qualified for a $1,500 energy tax credit, so I got some of my income back that would otherwise have been wasted by the federal govt. I'm enjoying taking luxurious 20-30 minute hot showers without ever having to worry about running out of hot water.

In addition, because I need lots of air conditioning to cool off my home with all my lovely incandescent bulb heat, I CHOSE to replace two 23,500 BTU & one 18,000 BTU AC units that had become a bit weather-worn as this example below shows. I replaced them all with three Mitsubishi Mr. Slim indoor units running off a single outside inverter AC/heat pump unit that can provide AC or Heat, and have portable remote controls. Again, that was my choice, after looking at my options...which is how it should be conducted--NOT FORCED or MANDATED!

And as for lighting, no reason new construction should be using screw bulb fixtures. You could put purpose-built LED fixtures in every room instead. In fact, that could be a selling point-move here and never change a light bulb again. The only caveat is the fixtures would need to have adjustable color temperature (from maybe 2500K up to 6500K) to account for individual lighting preferences, and also would need to be dimmable. With LEDs though that's easy to engineer.

That is your opinion. Personally I would not buy a home that didn't allow me the freedom of using screw in bulbs, because I strongly prefer the lighting quality of incandescent bulbs, as do many other people. I have bulbs in many locations that I have not changed in over 5 years. I would want to know that the LED options are reliable, affordable, and time tested before sticking them in my home--new or old. In any case, it should be my choice, not yours.

The ~60% reduction in residential lighting use these statistics allude to can easily have been caused by people just using CFLs in a few of their most used fixtures. The cost of perhaps a half dozen CFLs is negligible in any household budget. Based on what I see going for walks at night (lots of windows lit at color temperatures which can only be CFL of some type) I do in fact think that at least in the markets where electricity costs a lot, there has been widespread CFL adoption over the last decade. Helping the matter has been the fact that CFLs have reached near price parity with incandescents. It also means unfortunately that the TCO equation changes for LED bulbs. Right now, if you're replacing incandescent, the TCO of an LED bulb over its lifetime is less. If you're replacing a CFL, the answer isn't as clear cut, although LED bulbs could offer tangible advantages over CFL (instant on, better CRI, dimmability) even if their TCO is the same.

Again, this is fraught with speculation because no one has yet shown me an OBJECTIVE report explaining how they have determined percent of total energy used that comes from residential lighting. I can make just as valid of a case that the 2005 EPA study used to justify the lower Mercury issue with CFL's over Incandescents was totally flawed and as refinements and corrections were reported in subsequent years, just like many of the GW arguments, they picked the most dramatic isolated report to try and make their point.

Hey, JTR, ya gotta at least say that I make you think, and gives a certain enjoyment to reading and posting on CPF again. :wave: I'll be done with this issue shortly though, as all I wanted to do was let everyone know they can still buy beautiful Incandescents made in USA by those long lost USA entrepreneurs who figure out how to get around the ignorant political bans and regulations.

 

[BVH]

Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

Lux, Am I detecting quiet undercurrents that you don't want to live in this soon-to-be Nanny State we call the U.S.A.

 

[jtr1962]

Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

This is a comment typical of looking at things the way Washington DC politicians, DOE & EPA officials, and those who bought the man-made GW ruse. You are mapping your logic, aesthetics, and then feeling that your wishes should most certainly be imposed on the peon public. You don't live in the real world where people cannot buy enough groceries to feed their family, have cancelled their vacations because the price of gas is too high, can't find a job because not enough is being done to resolve unemployment. The last thing most people care about is having openings or AC units hanging out, or upgrading a major part of their HVAC systems....unless you personally are going to pay to have them all replaced--and I don't think you are making that much money.

No, I'm suggesting something here which would easily SAVE people money by reducing their utility bills for heating/cooling. The reason it's not done is simple-the contractors building the apartments want to build as cheaply as possible, but sell as high as possible. Based on what I see, many may not even know how to install the central climate control systems. The irony here is the cost of putting a single heating/cooling system in a brand new building would likely be less than installing individual units in each apartment. I'd bet good money that's the case, because central climate control systems are always installed in office buildings. Why this isn't done more for apartment buildings makes little sense to me.

Now, I happen to proudly be in the self-made 1% of affluence, and CHOSE....let me say that word again....CHOSE to replace my 35 year old American Standard natural gas hot water boiler, circulated by two electric motors around the cast iron baseboard with a Navien CH-180 which also let me replace my 60 gallon gas hot water heater, giving me as much continuous hot water on demand that I desire. It qualified for a $1,500 energy tax credit, so I got some of my income back that would otherwise have been wasted by the federal govt. I'm enjoying taking luxurious 20-30 minute hot showers without ever having to worry about running out of hot water.

In addition, because I need lots of air conditioning to cool off my home with all my lovely incandescent bulb heat, I CHOSE to replace two 23,500 BTU & one 18,000 BTU AC units that had become a bit weather-worn as this example below shows. I replaced them all with three Mitsubishi Mr. Slim indoor units running off a single outside inverter AC/heat pump unit that can provide AC or Heat, and have portable remote controls. Again, that was my choice, after looking at my options...which is how it should be conducted--NOT FORCED or MANDATED!

Well, people can only make rational choices when they're made aware of those choices. The majority of people aren't aware of things like LSD rechargeables, geothermal heating/cooling systems, or any of a bunch of other neat technologies which are just plain better than what they replace. Sure, they can look up these things, but most lack the initiative, will only purchase whatever is right in front of them in the store. If we're going to mandate anything, then I'd say mandate educational placards which must be displayed next to any item which has a better potential replacement. Display placards describing LSD rechargeables next to shelves full of alkaline batteries, LED placards next to shelves with incandescent bulbs, etc. You're not forcing people to buy these things by doing that, but merely educating them that alternatives exist to what they're doing now. I'm not seeing the harm in that. I recall years ago schools actually used to teach kids to be critical of advertising, to examine their choices carefully, etc. Parents often did the same. A lot of the disposable crap we sell nowadays which is great for corporate income streams, but awful for the consumer, would have been left sitting on store shelves 40 years ago.

That is your opinion. Personally I would not buy a home that didn't allow me the freedom of using screw in bulbs, because I strongly prefer the lighting quality of incandescent bulbs, as do many other people. I have bulbs in many locations that I have not changed in over 5 years. I would want to know that the LED options are reliable, affordable, and time tested before sticking them in my home--new or old. In any case, it should be my choice, not yours.

Non-incandescents have been used in commercial/office/industrial applications for decades, yet I'm not seeing anyone complaining they don't have the freedom to use screw-base bulbs. And the whole lighting quality thing is a red herring. There are LEDs which imitate incandescents perfectly if that's your thing. The high-CRI XPGs and the Nichia 119/219 are but a few examples. I'll bet in a blind test even you couldn't tell the difference. Certainly many of the other light connoisseurs here have said as much. As for reliability, it's already been demonstrated by loads of manufacturer testing. The electronics which power the LEDs are no different than any other power conversion electronics which have existed for decades, and again the reliability has been proven. So exactly what other hoops do we need to jump through to convince you? At this point your attitude seems more like "I just want to use incandescents to spite all the (environmentalists, GW crowd, politicians, or some other villian of choice)." Fine-you have that "right", for now. Like someone said in this thread, my guess is in a few years time threads like this will be moot.

Again, this is fraught with speculation because no one has yet shown me an OBJECTIVE report explaining how they have determined percent of total energy used that comes from residential lighting. I can make just as valid of a case that the 2005 EPA study used to justify the lower Mercury issue with CFL's over Incandescents was totally flawed and as refinements and corrections were reported in subsequent years, just like many of the GW arguments, they picked the most dramatic isolated report to try and make their point.

It doesn't matter whether these reports are right or wrong because for the majority, the more efficient lighting technologies are just plain better. I switched mostly to linear tubes decades ago, BY CHOICE. At the time I didn't give a rat's behind that they used less energy. Rather, I liked the much longer life, much nicer (to me) color temperature, much more even lighting, and the fact that they didn't make a room hot at the light levels I found comfortable (my workshop downstairs would need about 1000 watts incandescent to provide such lighting levels). I also went to CFL in the few screw-base bulbs we have left-for the same reasons. I've even put LEDs in a few sockets. Eventually everything will be LED.

Hey, JTR, ya gotta at least say that I make you think, and gives a certain enjoyment to reading and posting on CPF again. :wave: I'll be done with this issue shortly though, as all I wanted to do was let everyone know they can still buy beautiful Incandescents made in USA by those long lost USA entrepreneurs who figure out how to get around the ignorant political bans and regulations.

Well, I wouldn't celebrate prematurely. If the number of rough service bulbs increases greatly from years past, then it'll mean people are using them for general service. When that happens, I'm sure the loophole will be closed. Like I said earlier, if you really still want incandescent, exactly what is wrong with the halogen bulbs being sold? It seems like a win-win situation-the same light (~1600 lumens) for less power (72 watts versus 100 watts).

Oh, and a real entrepreneur invents a brand new product which performs some function previously not possible (skirting a ban doesn't fall into that category). I'm glad we have something made in the USA but let's be realistic-incandescent is a dying technology. It might go even faster than I think it will. As a good example, I was floored how quickly CRTs died out once the kinks with flat screens were worked out. Even I thought CRTs might be made in good numbers until about 2015. I have a good feeling it'll be the same with incandescent light bulbs, ICE vehicles, and mechanical hard disks.

 

[flashflood]

Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

It might go even faster than I think it will. As a good example, I was floored how quickly CRTs died out once the kinks with flat screens were worked out.

Yes! Exactly!

We never needed a CRT ban, because LCD won on the merits -- flat, light, cool, less power hungry. For that reason, there is no retro CRT market (other than some fetish site, somewhere, surely). People were thrilled to get rid of their hot, hulking CRTs. It would have been a very different story if we had forced people to switch from CRT to LCD in 1995, when the resolution was lower, frame refresh was like molasses, color rendition was terrible -- and the price was stratospheric. This is why I think the incandescent ban is a mistake. There are better technologies in the pipeline, probably just a year or two from being able to win on their own. The people who are inventing this wonderful future for us are going as fast as they can, because hey -- they want to get rich. We can't legislate them into inventing faster. On the contrary: by banning their most cost-effective competition, we reduce the market pressure to lower cost, thus ensuring that both CFL and LED will be artificially expensive.