Incan Bulbs Banned in 4 Yrs. Stock Up Now !!

[LuxLuthor]

Well, similar to the small toilets mandated by the US Govt. years ago to save water, today's energy bill signed into law by Bush bans incan bulbs in 4 years.

Not that I mind the idea of saving energy and all that, but if you have recessed lighting, or lamps that will not take the fluorescent bulbs, you are out of luck.

I plan on stocking up over the next month on all the household incan bulbs I would need for the rest of my life.

[jugg2]

They make CFLs that work in recessed lighting. I have some.

[LukeA]

Originally Posted by jugg2

They make CFLs that work in redessed lighting. I have some.

I have seen these. It's not like CFL manufacturers will allow a segment of their market to go unsatisfied.

[jtr1962]

Originally Posted by LuxLuthor

I plan on stocking up over the next month on all the household incan bulbs I would need for the rest of my life.

For now the ban will be on sales. Should they ever decide to enact a ban on use this won't help you. Seriously, in four years time LED replacements will exist which will do everything an incandescent can do, but better. The free market isn't going to leave a big void. Why would you even want to continue using incandescents under those circumstances? My guess is you'll be wasting space and money stocking up. Well, maybe you can sell the bulbs to a museum or something.

And is changing fixtures to accomodate new lighting really such a big deal? I changed out the T12 fixtures several years ago to accomodate the new, more efficient T8 tubes. The payback period on that was probably only a few years, and the light quality is way better (no flicker, better color rendering). I'll be happy to put up LED-based fixtures in another ten years or so.

[LuxLuthor]

Originally Posted by LukeA

I have seen these. It's not like CFL manufacturers will allow a segment of their market to go unsatisfied.

It is naive to assume that Govt. legislative types bowing to pressure from various lobby groups would care one bit for the ramifications on all those who will be subjected to their domination.

I assure you that I have 25-30 recessed, decorative, bathroom, spotlight, and other types of lighting that no bulbs exist to match my fixutres. The house has some very old custom cabinets & woodwork that do not allow the current 75W fluorescent bulbs to fit. I have tried them all, and they are not the same dimensions as incan bulbs. In addition, I just took a photo of some of the other fixtures, lamps, etc. that require these types of bulbs which have no replacements. I don't care now that I know they passed this lame restriction, I'll stock up now enough to last 50 years.

(thumbnail)

[LuxLuthor]

Originally Posted by jtr1962

For now the ban will be on sales. Should they ever decide to enact a ban on use this won't help you. Seriously, in four years time LED replacements will exist which will do everything an incandescent can do, but better. The free market isn't going to leave a big void. Why would you even want to continue using incandescents under those circumstances? My guess is you'll be wasting space and money stocking up. Well, maybe you can sell the bulbs to a museum or something.

And is changing fixtures to accomodate new lighting really such a big deal? I changed out the T12 fixtures several years ago to accomodate the new, more efficient T8 tubes. The payback period on that was probably only a few years, and the light quality is way better (no flicker, better color rendering). I'll be happy to put up LED-based fixtures in another ten years or so.

I use fluorescent bulb replacements in the few lamps they will fit. If you have an older home with antique lamps & custom wood/cabinets built around incan fixtures, it is naive to assume all the new LED/flurescent bulbs will work. I assure you they won't. In addition, I have not yet seen an LED that I like using over the color and other features of an incan.

It would require at least $40-60,000 to take down all the custom wood work...hoping that it does not get damaged in the process, since much of it is no longer available...just to replace light sockets to accomodate new bulbs. Other locations have sockets that are plastered in place that would literally need to be destroyed and re-plastered.

Again, I recommend that people who need custom incan bulbs stock up now....for the same reason I bought two extra toilets before the small water flushing restriction went into effect. My plumber offered me $1200 each for them last year which I declined. They will never be able to ban the use of bulbs that people have inside their homes.

[2xTrinity]

It looked like most of the efficiency improvements specified in the bill were only incremental. Usage of Infrared-Coated Halogens should be able to fulfill the efficiency requirements in most cases. Since those actually are still incandescent, but simply more efficient, they will still be able to tolerate dimming circuits, excessive heat, and such that would exclude LED drop-ins from working in many places.

[LuxLuthor]

Originally Posted by 2xTrinity

It looked like most of the efficiency improvements specified in the bill were only incremental. Usage of Infrared-Coated Halogens should be able to fulfill the efficiency requirements in most cases. Since those actually are still incandescent, but simply more efficient, they will still be able to tolerate dimming circuits, excessive heat, and such that would exclude LED drop-ins from working in many places.

Yeah, but similar to gun control, once the "Al Gore Lunatics" draw first blood in a new area like this, they keep adding to the restrictions....and ignore rational critics such as this other headline story today. They will categorize people like me as "Light Bulb Deniers."

Again, it's no problem for me as long as I know the latest restrictions. I'll soon have all the incan bulbs I'll ever need.

[jtr1962]

Originally Posted by LuxLuthor

If you have an older home with antique lamps & custom wood/cabinets built around incan fixtures, it is naive to assume all the new LED/flurescent bulbs will work. I assure you they won't. In addition, I have not yet seen an LED that I like using over the color and other features of an incan.

And you don't think these problems will be solved in four years time? Four years is an eternity in the LED industry. Think what we had four years ago and what we have now. I think in 2003 state of the art for a Luxeon was about 20 lm/W, and many came with an awful green tint. Now LEDs are mostly pure white, with neither a blue nor a yellow tint, and 4 to 5 times as efficient. We'll solve any remaining color issues (mostly color rendering of deep reds) by then I'm sure. And by definition LEDs are small. As their efficiency creeps up, it should be possible to make screw-in replacements not much larger than the socket.

Also, you're the exception, not the rule. Few people have thousands of dollars of custom woodwork built around incandescent sockets. Most people just have a junction box in the ceiling which can accomodate any type of fixture. Most people have crappy fixtures which need to be replaced every few years anyway.

I can think of one reason to stock on bulbs, though. There will likely be people who refuse to switch to anything else, indeed won't even look at anything else because in their mind "incandescent is better". I suppose these are the same type of people who thought candles were better when incandescent first came out. Those are the people I'll be able to sell my stock of light bulbs to for $50 a piece around 2020.

While we probably won't ban use of incandescent, for now anyway, I can easily think of ways to discourage their use. The power company can occasionally send a few voltage spikes lasting several seconds down the line. Most modern equipement will cope just fine. Indeed, a lot of equipement these days can run off anywhere from 85 to 265 VAC. The incandescent bulbs however would be zapped instantly by a 260V surge. Don't laugh. If I were running a power company and were faced with the highly unpopular choice of building a new power plant, or getting people to cut back on their usage, I might well do exactly such a thing. IIRC there are also other types of voltage signatures which would zap incandescents without affecting anything else.

BTW, my guess is LED technology will progress so fast that in four or five years time there won't be any incandescents on store shelves, ban or not. We're already there efficiency-wise. Color is not perfect, but acceptable for general lighting (indeed much nicer than incandescents and most fluorescents). Cost is still a factor, but $0.20, 1000 lumen emitters in 5 years will be entirely possible given Moore's law. Under those circumstances, it's really hard to see anybody continuing to mass produce incandescents.

[NeonLights]

This is the first I've heard of this, and it is rather disconcerting. About half of our lighting is on dimmer switches, which don't work with the CFL bulbs. We have started switching the lights we can to CFL, but I'd like to retain the dimmer switches for a variety of reasons. I'll be stocking up as well unless a reasonable dimmer-friendly replacement bulb comes out in the next year or three.

[jtr1962]

Originally Posted by LuxLuthor

Yeah, but similar to gun control, once the "Al Gore Lunatics" draw first blood in a new area like this, they keep adding to the restrictions....and ignore rational critics such as this other headline story today. They will categorize people like me as "Light Bulb Deniers."

Why does global warming have to enter into any debates on banning incandescents? I can think of other good reasons like avoiding the need to build more power plants, reducing air pollution (not CO2 but the other pollutants which make the air unpleasant to breate and give us cancer), reducing landfill from short-lived incandescents, avoiding wars to secure more fossil fuels, or even just saving money. Everytime I discuss things like this, or subjects like EVs, with people I purposely avoid the words "global warming". Sooner or later though they enter the discussion, and I'll mention that I never bought it up. You don't have to believe in global warming to see the need to cut back on energy usage, or switch to alternatives. However, someone always seems to bring it up.

[LuxLuthor]

I recognize your points, and realize the push for LED's. I still think it is naive to assume everything will be worked out for people who have custom and antique lighting....and there are hundreds of thousands....likely millions of people who do.

There has not yet been any indication that LED colors are going to be acceptable to me, despite the improvements over the last 5 years. There is also no likelihood that some of the custom bulbs I showed in image will be accomodated. Why would they care about trying to accomodate all the old bulb styles when Big Brother has mandated their obsolescence?

Just like the 1.6 gallon per flush toilet mandate, they don't work as well as my 3.5-4 gallon/flush models. Same with shower head water restrictors which I removed. Some new mandated restrictions just do not work as well for all people...but no consideration is given for exceptions.

Edit: I purposely didn't bring up the GW topic, per se. My point in posting the link is to illustrate that legitimate people who have reasonable exceptions, challenge the legitimacy of various issues, or just have differences of opinion--are not recognized and respected. Now that you mentioned it however, it (GW) is fueling irrational discussions and unnecessarily expensive actions....mostly why this law was passed and signed. Believe it or not, there are many aspects and spinoffs of the energy discussion which do not stand up to critical scrutiny. The GW issue just interjected a pretentious and silly layer of obfuscation on an otherwise inordinately complex issue. For example, I reject the notion that there has been any war fought to secure adequate fossil fuel.

I can make many cases for using nuclear, coal, wind, wave, solar, geothermal, domestic and offshore oil exploration that would give more sources of energy than we could ever use. It is mostly the environmental restrictions that have us buying oil from the rest of the world, rather than harness energy reserves from our own backyard.

Restricting the sale of incan light bulbs however, makes these people feel good....like it is a real long term solution.

[jtr1962]

Originally Posted by LuxLuthor

Why would they care about trying to accomodate all the old bulb styles when Big Brother has mandated their obsolescence?

It's called the free market. If there's a demand, someone will make it. Indeed, I'll be happy to produce small quantities of just the types of bulbs you pictured once LED technology is a little more mature in a few years time. As for color, I've little doubt we can get very close to incandescent if that's what you want.

Just like the 1.6 gallon per flush toilet mandate, they don't work as well as my 3.5-4 gallon/flush models. Same with shower head water restrictors which I removed. Some new mandated restrictions just do not work as well for all people...but no consideration is given for exceptions.

Ditto on the toilets so I just flush after one or two wads of paper so it doesn't back up. Probably still saves water overall compared to using 4 gallons the times when all you're flushing is urine. Also ditto on the showerhead restrictors. The slow water flow doesn't rinse well. I prefer my regular ~60 GPM shower head.

[LuxLuthor]

Originally Posted by jtr1962

It's called the free market. If there's a demand, someone will make it. Indeed, I'll be happy to produce small quantities of just the types of bulbs you pictured once LED technology is a little more mature in a few years time. As for color, I've little doubt we can get very close to incandescent if that's what you want.

It's been a fun back and forth discussion with you, and I most certainly appreciate your willingness to accommodate my custom incand lighting needs. Like I already said, within a week I will have all the incand light bulbs I will ever need for the next 50 years stored in my basement.

Originally Posted by jtr1962

Ditto on the toilets so I just flush after one or two wads of paper so it doesn't back up. Probably still saves water overall compared to using 4 gallons the times when all you're flushing is urine. Also ditto on the showerhead restrictors. The slow water flow doesn't rinse well. I prefer my regular ~60 GPM shower head.

My answer is to buy a toilet & shower head that works.

I subscribe to what the Al Gore's & John Edwards' of the world actually do in their own lives, as opposed to what they hypocritically tell everyone else to do in theirs.

[jtr1962]

Originally Posted by LuxLuthor

It's been a fun back and forth discussion with you, and I most certainly appreciate your willingness to accommodate my custom incand lighting needs. Like I already said, within a week I will have all the incand light bulbs I will ever need for the next 50 years stored in my basement.

What if you live longer than that? Seriously, I've heard it's possible within our lifetimes that aging might be cured, or greatly slowed. It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that you or I will live to see the year 3000.

I subscribe to what the Al Gore's & John Edwards' of the world actually do in their own lives, as opposed to what they hypocritically tell everyone else to do in theirs.

I don't take a thing either of them say seriously. When Al Gore gives up his private plane, lives in a normal-sized house, takes a subway to work, and does a few other things he preaches I might start listening to him.

[AndyTiedye]

I predict that LED replacements for every conceivable incan used in home lighting will be available much sooner than 4 years from now.

BTW, most of the new toilets have 2 levels of flush. If you hold the handle down it dumps about twice as much water as if you release right away.

[LuxLuthor]

Originally Posted by AndyTiedye

I predict that LED replacements for every conceivable incan used in home lighting will be available much sooner than 4 years from now.

BTW, most of the new toilets have 2 levels of flush. If you hold the handle down it dumps about twice as much water as if you release right away.

You can predict all you want. I predict I'll be using my incands.

Whoops, after checking the toilet I just used, I have 7 gallon per flush models, as are the two backups in the basement.

I thought they were 3.5 GPF, but I think new ones are all the way down to 1.6 GPF....typical of these more Govt. regulation types....get their way with 3.5 GPF restrictions, then push for more...down to 1.6 GPF....probably a few more years and they will be insisting on only cruise ship type vacuum toilets, and recycling your pee.

Let's take a look-see at what Gore & Edwards are using in their mansions.

[LukeA]

Originally Posted by LuxLuthor

You can predict all you want. I predict I'll be using my incands.

Whoops, after checking the toilet I just used, I have 7 gallon per flush models, as are the two backups in the basement.

I thought they were 3.5 GPF, but I think new ones are all the way down to 1.6 GPF....typical of these more Govt. regulation types....get their way with 3.5 GPF restrictions, then push for more...down to 1.6 GPF....probably a few more years and they will be insisting on only cruise ship type vacuum toilets, and recycling your pee.

Let's take a look-see at what Gore & Edwards are using in their mansions.

In my house, there are two toilets that use 1.6 gpf each, and I would bet that they flush more powerfully than your 7 gpf toilet. Because there's also a 6 gpf Eljer upstairs that is easily outclassed by the other two.

Efficiency is not necessarily a bad thing.

BTW, nice straw man argument against my previous post.

[LuxLuthor]

Originally Posted by LukeA

In my house, there are two toilets that use 1.6 gpf each, and I would bet that they flush more powerfully than your 7 gpf toilet. Because there's also a 6 gpf Eljer upstairs that is easily outclassed by the other two.

Efficiency is not necessarily a bad thing.

BTW, nice straw man argument against my previous post.

How much would you like to wager on the toilet flushing? I do get out and have chances to see and use these new 1.6 GPF models....and they are inferior. I was talking to my plumber in August who hears more complaints and service calls over them than anything else he is called about. He has a lot of people who are waiting for him to find some of the old toilets.

I have no problem with efficiency if it actually has a good result for all involved. I'll worry about the water in my toilet and shower when I see a total ban on watering lawns, and shutting down decorative fountains throughout the country.

Straw man? Show me the replacement CFL's for the few bulbs in my photo. Show me where they will put the ballast in these size bulbs. Show me why the CFL manufacturer would care about making retrofit lamps for obsolete (incan) fixtures, lamps, recessed custom lighting....especially in face of the new ban.

Ya gotta do better than tossing out a weak straw quip, my friend. Just like the toilet capacity ban, or the luxury tax imposed on new boats/yachts that lasted just long enough to close all the factories and put all the workers on unemployment before it was repealed....this incan ban is filled with as many problems as potential benefits. It is what governments do--make more problems when trying to fix one.

[brickbat]

I'm confused. The first time I checked the original link, the article was written as if the bill had passed. Now, the article says it's "likely to pass".

[LuxLuthor]

Originally Posted by brickbat

I'm confused. The first time I checked the original link, the article was written as if the bill had passed. Now, the article says it's "likely to pass".

They just have not updated the link. Here is the more current status of it being law.

[Alan B]

Originally Posted by NeonLights

This is the first I've heard of this, and it is rather disconcerting. About half of our lighting is on dimmer switches, which don't work with the CFL bulbs. We have started switching the lights we can to CFL, but I'd like to retain the dimmer switches for a variety of reasons. I'll be stocking up as well unless a reasonable dimmer-friendly replacement bulb comes out in the next year or three.

There are dimmer friendly CFLs now. I installed some a month ago. Not as wide a range, but they do dim and don't blow up. Led lamps on dimmers should work better.

Bans are not a good way to encourage technology and savings, though. Tungsten lamps are just better for some things, such as in the oven, or for heat lamps. Politics and Bans don't make the right answer. CFLs will also be banned soon (most likely) due to the mercury.

-- Alan

[LED_Thrift]

Originally Posted by LuxLuthor

...I plan on stocking up over the next month on all the household incan bulbs I would need for the rest of my life.

Me too, I'll need about four. Mostly for the light inside the oven. I don't know if there is a reasonable alternative to incan oven lights. This legislation will be a great spur to the development of LED "light bulbs".

[KROMATICS]

Lots of paranoia going around yet no one has actually bothered to read the bill.

[PlayboyJoeShmoe]

[flownosaj]

Originally Posted by LuxLuthor

Home Depot has some of the CF candelabra base bulbs, in 7 and 15 watt. Only reason I don't have them in the dining room is that we have a dimmer in there.

[KROMATICS]

Originally Posted by LED_Thrift

Me too, I'll need about four. Mostly for the light inside the oven. I don't know if there is a reasonable alternative to incan oven lights. This legislation will be a great spur to the development of LED "light bulbs".

`(D) GENERAL SERVICE INCANDESCENT LAMP-

• `(i) IN GENERAL- The term `general service incandescent lamp' means a standard incandescent or halogen type lamp that--
  • `(I) is intended for general service applications;
    `(II) has a medium screw base;
    `(III) has a lumen range of not less than 310 lumens and not more than 2,600 lumens; and
    `(IV) is capable of being operated at a voltage range at least partially within 110 and 130 volts.
  `(ii) EXCLUSIONS- The term `general service incandescent lamp' does not include the following incandescent lamps:
  • `(I) An appliance lamp.
    `(II) A black light lamp.
    `(III) A bug lamp.
    `(IV) A colored lamp.
    `(V) An infrared lamp.
    `(VI) A left-hand thread lamp.
    `(VII) A marine lamp.
    `(VIII) A marine signal service lamp.
    `(IX) A mine service lamp.
    `(X) A plant light lamp.
    `(XI) A reflector lamp.
    `(XII) A rough service lamp.
    `(XIII) A shatter-resistant lamp (including a shatter-proof lamp and a shatter-protected lamp).
    `(XIV) A sign service lamp.
    `(XV) A silver bowl lamp.
    `(XVI) A showcase lamp.
    `(XVII) A 3-way incandescent lamp.
    `(XVIII) A traffic signal lamp.
    `(XIX) A vibration service lamp.
    `(XX) A G shape lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002 with a diameter of 5 inches or more.
    `(XXI) A T shape lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002) and that uses not more than 40 watts or has a length of more than 10 inches.
    `(XXII) A B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S, or M-14 lamp (as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002 and ANSI C78.20-2003) of 40 watts or less.'; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:
`(T) APPLIANCE LAMP- The term `appliance lamp' means any lamp that--

• `(i) is specifically designed to operate in a household appliance, has a maximum wattage of 40 watts, and is sold at retail, including an oven lamp, refrigerator lamp, and vacuum cleaner lamp; and
  `(ii) is designated and marketed for the intended application, with--
  • `(I) the designation on the lamp packaging; and
    `(II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as being for appliance use.

[LukeA]

Originally Posted by LuxLuthor

How much would you like to wager on the toilet flushing? I do get out and have chances to see and use these new 1.6 GPF models....and they are inferior. I was talking to my plumber in August who hears more complaints and service calls over them than anything else he is called about. He has a lot of people who are waiting for him to find some of the old toilets.

I would wager plenty on the toilet flushing. In the three years that that toilet has been in (very regular) use, I have had to use a plunger on it exactly once, as opposed to at least once or twice per month with the 6 gpf model it replaced.

I am talking about this toilet. Well, a production sample from the previous generation to the linked models.

[Sub_Umbra]

I can't believe some here are talking about the free market. Wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with the free market. The free market wanted incans yesterday. They want them today and they will still want them tomorrow -- and they vote with their wallets. No group of elitest doddering dunderheads in DC who have never created a product can ever hope to emulate the free market -- they may be able to cram bad ideas like the CAFE standards down some throats but then that hasn't really been very successful in terms of adoption. The same is true of this most recent ban.

Politicians can't lead the free market around by the nose -- it's the other way around. Most of the solutions wistfully suggested to this arbitrary ban are just that -- wistful. Politicians in CA have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the last twenty years trying to lead the energy business around by the nose and they have come up with nothing of any import. CA's energy situation would be far better if they had just banked on the free market rather than constantly eroding it by throwing money at every half baked idea that came down the pike.

The very notion that politicions may somehow jump start the wisdom of the market is completely backward (as CA has demonstrated.)

When something better than incans comes around a free market will rush to it with no coaxing whatsoever. Like the CAFE standards before it this idea of putting the cart before the horse will likely only lead to higher cost and non-compliance.

As far as reading the bill goes I don't see how that's important. If the legislators who vote on the bills don't read them, why should we?

[Alan B]

The bill has some interesting and reasonable exclusions, but legislation like this rarely gets it right in the details.

How many lumens are photofloods? When will cost effective LEDs or CFLs match that?? Maybe they're excluded, hard to tell. I know we've got some "natural light" blue incans that will probably not be allowed under this ban, and there is no equivalent fluorescent or LED that has the right color spectrum for color analysis, and the market is so small it may not be satisfied...

Of course all they have to do to get around this is to change the bulb base and make an adapter...

-- Alan