Why not tax 110V incandescent light bulbs?

[PhotonBoy]

We all know that 110V incandescent light bulbs are inexpensive but very inefficient, with up to 90% of the energy consumed by these lights being wasted as heat. At least 10% of our electrical generating capacity is used for lighting.

Simple concept: Why not tax 110V bulbs? This would provide an incentive to consumers to shift to CFLs (compact fluorescent lights) and other choices such as LEDs. The benefit to the environment would be significant, plus it would reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil. What's not to like?

[jtr1962]

I've thought they should do one of two things to get people to stop using incandescents. A tax like you proposed (with the proceeds going to fund development of more efficient alternatives) is a great idea. The free market would see to it that all sorts of nice incandescent replacements hit the shelves, including something for those abysmally inefficient small base chandelier bulbs. My other idea was to simply prohibit the manufacture and/or sale of bulbs in the sizes for which viable CFL replacements exist, and to require all new housing construction (and major renovations) to have built in electronically-ballasted fixtures for four foot linear T-8 tubes in every single room. Commercial buildings have been using linear tubes for decades. It's long past time this and CFLs became the dominant form of lighting in residences as well, with efficient alternatives like metal halide being used for outdoor fixtures.

On a similar note, I see a gas tax as the only real way to get people to conserve. Phase it in over a period of ten years until the tax is $10 per gallon. The free market will see to it that the majority of cars produced after ten years will use non-polluting alternatives like fuel cells, or solar power (or even pick up power from stationary power plants via buried cables in the roadways themselves).

[James S]

You already pay a huge premium on regular light bulbs. It comes in the form of your electric bill each month. Also, if you're living in a colder climate and have electric heat anyway, that 90% of heat is about the same price as you're already paying for your heat strips.

CF bulbs are great, and can reduce your electric bill some, but thinking that by replacing most or all of your bulbs with them will somehow save us from something is probably wrong. That assumes that the bulk of our electricity usage is for lighting and thats just not true.

If you insist on getting the government involved, why not offer a subsidy for using CF bulbs instead of a tax on using the old ones? Take those $5 and $6 dollar bulbs and get the price down to $1 or $2 and you'll sell a lot more of them. Put a coupon for a free one in every electric bill I get.

By far the bulk of residential electric usage is used for heating and especially cooling. In some places there already exist government subsidies for you if you add extra insulation and the like. This will make an even larger impact on your electric usage than CF bulbs.

Ultimately, even a tax isn't going to put a break on regular bulb usage in a hurry. People show over and over that they are willing to pay a horrible premium to pay for something over time rather than all up front. Even with the cheap gas at $2 a gallon around here, people are still buying SUV's that get 12 miles to the gallon. And if you tax it out of their range then only the really rich people will be able to afford an SUV and they will still buy it and they wont care how many mpg it gets and there will be no reason for the car companies to build ones with better engines [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Really, taxing them won't help in the least.

EDIT: oh, and keep in mind that the long tube florescent bulbs are 50% more efficient than even the CF's [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] So we should really tax the CF bulbs as well and get people to replace their fixtures with the long tube type [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[BB]

And we should tax lights that contain mercury too--currently people rarely dispose of their old items properly that contain mercury and it is quickly approaching the number 1 source of mercury pollution in the United States...

Woops--you did know that mercury is in every CFL and fluorescent light...

And we will get smuggling, black markets, weird laws such as only police and government agencies will be able to use filament bulbs in their flashlights and spot lights. Cars will become more expensive as HIDs and LEDs replace headlights and fog-lights, etc... You spoke of 110 VAC lights--you can purchase 12, 135 and 240 VAC lights for use around home and office--did you want too include those? What about the mercury bulbs that use a tungsten filament as a ballast (saw lots of those in Asia 15 years ago)?

And if you exempt flashlights or automotive headlights--people will probably start installing them in their kitchens to get good lighting (California already requires florescent lighting in kitchens so owners started putting one florescent fixture in the middle of the room and a 1/2 dozen incandescent recessed lights around the kitchen--using even more energy--and then some of the local towns caught on and are now requiring CFLs in the can lights--which the homeowners then swap out after the inspector leaves)...

And the government will over spend the expected revenues (as the public changes their habits and just flat-out evade the tax) and end up spending more money just trying to collect the money...

Tobacco law may not generate expected revenue:

[ QUOTE ]
California's Board of Equalization, the state's tobacco tax collector, estimated the new law will bring in between $58 million and $87 million in additional revenue during the coming fiscal year, by capturing part of the $300 million in tobacco taxes that go unpaid each year.

However, the actual amount could be tens of millions lower, since far fewer retailers than expected are paying license fees, the costs for collecting taxes are higher than anticipated and the state may have overestimated the amount of uncollected taxes available, an Associated Press review determined.
...
Tobacco taxes have declined in recent years from $1.8 billion in the fiscal year 1999-2000 to about $1.03 billion in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2003.

But it's impossible to tell whether the decrease in revenues is due to the state's aggressive anti-smoking campaigns or to an increase in tax evasion -- which includes smuggling of untaxed tobacco and the open sale of cigarettes bearing counterfeit tax stamps.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, there are some articles that said that the state will end up spending more money to collect and enforce this new tobacco tax than they will ever get in the tax itself.

Anyway, you can probably tell that I am not in favor of government regulations via the tax codes... /Rant off/

-Bill

[GJW]

Say what you like about long-tube fluorescent bulbs but I've never seen a 110v incandescent start a ceiling fire.
How those ballasts ever pass UL is beyond me.

[The_LED_Museum]

Seattle City Light put coupons for free CFL bulbs in the electric bill two or three years ago. Just mail the coupons in and get the bulbs a week or two later from USPS. No muss, no fuss, no waiting in line at the store, no driving or bus ride to the store, etc.
I believe I received 13W and 28W CFL bulbs.

[Lurker]

One reason not to tax incandescent light bulbs is that the manufacturers and their employees would be in an uproar over it. It would be politically impractical.

It seems like it would be more efficient to tax the electricity and let people figure out how best to conserve it with a variety of strategies. Or better yet, tax the byproduct output from the power plants and let the generators participate by figuring out how to produce it most cleanly. But again, there would always be an outcry over a new tax.

[James S]

Then there is the government related problem [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] If you add new taxes then the government has more money. As regular bulb usage dropped and the tax income from it decreased the government would have to raise other taxes to maintain the current level of revenue or it would have to cut other programs that it used this new money to start.

Governments rarely shrink, and once you give them a pay raise, you can't take it away again. So you'll be paying that new tax your whole life in one form or another. It will never go away [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[jtr1962]

I think about 20% of our electrical usage goes for lighting. Sure, there are other ways to reduce that such as more efficient appliances, better insulation, and generating power in house via solar cells. However, one big reason governments around the world are funding research into solid state light sources is that the potential energy savings would be enormous. Cutting energy usage by even 10% can reduce power plant pollution by 50% simply by allowing the least efficient plants to be taken offline. For example, oil and coal burning plants could be shut dwon and the remaining hydroelectric and nuclear plants would be sufficient to meet demand. Replacing every incandescent bulb could easily reduce electric demand by the 10% or 15% needed to shut down most of the fossil fuel plants.

Perhaps taxing or regulation as in California is not the best idea. The best solution is to simply not produce incandescent bulbs any more. Sure, black markets will spring about, but I doubt anyone would pay a huge premium or go to much trouble to get a light bulb. The only reason people buy incandescents is because they're cheap. I doubt a black market would have much overall effect were bulbs to simply no longer be made. Nobody is going to bother rewiring their house so they can use 12V automotive bulbs when they can simply screw in a CFL. It's not like CFLs are ludicrously expensive any more. They can be had for under $5, and sometimes under $2 with off brands.

[ QUOTE ]

California already requires florescent lighting in kitchens so owners started putting one florescent fixture in the middle of the room and a 1/2 dozen incandescent recessed lights around the kitchen--using even more energy--and then some of the local towns caught on and are now requiring CFLs in the can lights--which the homeowners then swap out after the inspector leaves.


[/ QUOTE ]
This just proves my point-people won't stop using bulbs until they simply aren't made any more. BTW, why on earth do they bother purchasing CFLs to satisfy the inspectors and then go back to bulbs. They already spent the money on the CFLs-why not use them? Anyway, if California were really serious about this they wouldn't allow loopholes. They would simply prohibit incandescent light sockets of any kind in homes, including those in table lamps, or just not allow incandescents to be sold, period. It seems we're going backwards with energy conservation. I see far too many new homes with either energy wasting chandeliers or enough recessed can lighting to act as a space heater. Not only are we not using more efficient alternatives, but we're lighting our homes to much higher levels than in the past. I really have no problem if someone lights a room with a single 40 or 60 watt incandescent bulb. Most fluorescent fixtures use that much or more. However, when I see a chandelier with 600 watts of bulbs (and it gives less light than a 2x32W T-8 fixture), or a family room with a dozen 75W halogen can lights it annoys the hell out of me. If you want to light a room that brightly put up a 2 or 4 tube fluorescent fixture. And while I'm on the subject of fluorescents, yes they do represent a mercury pollution problem, which is yet another reason I'm keen on LEDs eventually replacing everything, including fluorescents.

On the SUV/gas tax thing I brought up a gas tax may not completely stop SUVs from being made, but it will effectively limit them to very small numbers of rich who can afford to run them when gas costs $10 a gallon, and at that point they will no longer represent a significant pollution problem. SUVs only became a problem when everyone started buying them in huge numbers. At $10 a gallon it would cost $15,000 annually in gas to drive a 10 mpg SUV 15,000 miles. An average working person couldn't afford that high of a premium. Assuming you're going to go the tax route instead of banning incandescents outright you would need to tax at maybe $5 and up per bulb. And we sorely need to educate people better on the time value of money. Any way you look at it, using incandescents costs more-a lot more. All most people think about is the purchase price, not the energy it uses or the much more frequent, albeit cheaper than CFL, replacement costs.

[BB]

Regarding rewiring for 12volts--much of the current small/fancy track lighting today (with 20-50watt halogen/reflector bulb assemblies) are 12 volt systems.... Go by and look at Ikea's lighting department.

Regarding the US incandescent bulb worker's union--decades ago that was already moved overseas. Did you know that there are only, roughly, 15 machines in the world that make the light globes:?

Corning "Ribbon Machine" History (sorry--PDF only)...

[ QUOTE ]
Working at top speed in the red-orange radiance of a glass-melting tank, a team of two men, gaffer and assistant, could produce two bulbs per minute in the glass works of the 1890s. It was clear that, at this speed, Edison’s Age of Universal Light would be a long time dawning.
...
The Ribbon Machine was a marvel of efficiency. The astonishing figures of the early production runs were, by 1930, almost ancient history as the Ribbon Machine reached, and then surpassed, 1 million bulb blanks in 24 hours. This figure, in turn, receded as the Ribbon Machine was fine-tuned to its capacity of some 2,000 bulb blanks per minute, or nearly 3 million blanks in 24 hours, for smaller-sized bulbs.

With few mechanical changes, the Corning Ribbon Machine remains the highest state of the technology today, more than 50 years after its conception and construction in the old building, long since vanished, on Corning’s Pine Street. Fewer than 15 Ribbon Machines now supply the entire world’s consumption of glass blanks for incandescent light bulbs, with the exception of some small blanks that are hand-made for specialty lamps.

Ribbon Machines are flourishing in England, Belgium, Hungary, the Soviet Union, Japan and Iraq, providing inexpensive light bulb components for the light which now illuminates homes from the grandest of manors to the meanest of hovels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take a look at your next light bulb--I usually find it was made in Hungary.

And regarding an SUV fuel tax--there is another thread in Cafe where I posted an article where the state of Oregon and the federal government are working on a GPS based system would change the tax rate at the pump (via radio with your car) on gasoline based on how many miles you drive between fill-ups (drat--can't find the thread right now--search is not working right). Any ways, the tax rate for a 60 mpg car would be 6x the tax rate for a 10 mpg SUV (Oregon is worried that the hybrids are not paying their far share of road taxes). Government can't be trusted to do the right thing wrt taxes.

-Bill

[brickbat]

BB - Wow, thanks fo that link to the Corning Ribbon Machine. I love reading about engineering history - now I want to go the Henry Ford Museum to see their display. The ASME history site is pretty cool.

As for the 'sin' tax on incandescent bulbs - No way. Taxes always look good when it's the other guy that's getting hit. I wouldn't offer any encouragement for the gov't to get their fingers into anything else. I trust the free market on a much larger scale. You see, it's just a matter of time before energy prices rise so high that people just won't be able to afford to run inefficient bulbs. Then the incandescent bulbs will die a natural death. people will be happy to pay extra for innovative bulbs that are sold by innovative companies, and the gov't needn't play ANY role in this wonderful market.

Face it, we are going to use up all the fossil fuel on this planet soon, and whether we manage to conserve and make it last a few extra years or not, there will be big changes coming.

BTW, their 'cheapness' is not the ONLY reason that people still buy incandescent bulbs. Some people like their color better than CFLs and are willing to pay more to operate them. Just like some people like to drive big vehicles.

Where does the constitution give the gov't the right to regulate such issues???

[jtr1962]

[ QUOTE ]
brickbat said:
Where does the constitution give the gov't the right to regulate such issues???

[/ QUOTE ]
In the part that says the right to life, liberty, and the prursuit of happiness shall not be infringed. Everyone has that right, but when someone else's pursuit of their right to happiness infringes on my right then it is up to the government to step in. In the case of either using incandecents or driving large vehicles, the extra pollution caused infringes on my right to breathe clean air. It also creates extra dirt, acid rain, and greatly increased chances of all sorts of cancers plus asthma. While I believe global warming is for real, I never use that as my main argument against fossil fuels the way many environmentalists do. There are enough other good arguments already, including geopolitical arguments which would take this thread too far off topic.

I'm also mostly against new taxes and for the free market. In the cases where a better alternative (CFLs, linear fluorescents, LEDs within a few years) exists and is readily available at reasonable prices it makes more sense to just ban the offending technology (incandescent) completely than to tax it. We've already done similar things with other types of electrical devices such as requiring a minimum EER for air conditioners. Maybe for lighting we can just require a minimum of 60 lumens per watt, and raise that figure in stages to 150 lm/W. If someone can make an incandescent that efficienct, wonderful. If not, then they simply won't be sold any more. I hate it when the government gets a new revenue source. Even if you were to dedicate the tax solely to R&D of more efficient lighting, doubtless some politician would find a way to use it for something else.

In the case of fossil fueled vehicles, there are alternatives but none are produced in large numbers because the price of gas is kept artificially low. In this case you can't immediately ban the use of gasoline. Rather, it makes more sense to increase its price via a dedicated tax (to be used for mass transit and a national high-speed railway) so that the free market will produce alternatives. The tax is even fair in that it makes drivers (and airline passengers) pay for the true cost (in terms of environmental damage and cancer deaths) of their driving or flying. You also can exempt certain industries such as the railways from the fuel tax in order to encourage the use of this much more efficient method of transporting goods, or perhaps have a lesser tax to encourage them to electrify eventually (electric railways are much better than diesel-powered ones in terms of acceleration and operating costs). After maybe ten or fifteen years when the gas tax adds $10 per gallon and almost all fossil fuel vehicles have been replaced you then can ban the use of gasoline. The main problem I see is making sure the tax goes solely for its intended purpose since it will only be a temporary revenue source. Eventually, alternatives will have to be used anyway when fossil fuel supplies run dry. Given all the negatives associated with fossil fuel use, it's best to eliminate their use as soon as practical rather than wait 50 or 100 years.

[ QUOTE ]

BTW, their 'cheapness' is not the ONLY reason that people still buy incandescent bulbs. Some people like their color better than CFLs and are willing to pay more to operate them.


[/ QUOTE ]
I've frequently heard this and I think the problem here is that fluorescent got a negative connotation from the early geensih tubes and flickering magnetic ballasts and/or these people are simply used to incandescent. I know people (i.e. my sister) who won't even try a CFL for those reasons. They blurt out "I hate fluorescent" when they aren't even aware of how much better it's gotten. Given that incandescent light is suboptimal (sunlight + skylight is optimal) for our visual system I never understood why (other than habit) people actually prefer it. The color temp is all wrong, the color distortion is horrible, and you can't light to decent levels (say 100 lm/ft²) without consuming a ridiculous amount of power on the order of many hundreds of watts. A relative of mine asked me once what I thought of their new chandelier, and I said that while the fixture itself was very nice, the dim yellow light was totally disgusting and felt like someone put gauze over my eyes. Also, the damned thing consumed enough power (600 watts) to light a parking light with metal halides. As an engineer, using inefficient and suboptimal solutions to a problem offend me greatly, and incandescent bulbs are one technology that served us well but now deserves to die.

[LEDependent]

I'm all for the switch to CFL, but that HAS to be done voluntarily. There are many whose monetary concerns limit their options. Sure, fixing the environment would be great, but not everyone can afford it. Also, there ARE mercury-free fluorescents, but if you want any sort of color rendition, then most likely, you'll get one that contains mercury. (From what I've seen, anyway.)

[GJW]

I'd rather see the high-tax go on to all the low-quality CFLs so that their producers are driven out of business.
Go to any home improvement store and buy and try the 3 cheapest CFLs you can find and you will have no doubts as to why people still prefer incandescents.
Either they have lousy color, they buzz, or they emit enough RF to interfere with TV reception.
I'm not talking about CFLs from two years ago either -- these are still out there today.
[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsdown.gif[/img]

[jtr1962]

All I can say to that is you get what you pay for in this world. Outside of eBay or closeout sales you rarely get quality items cheaply. A decent quality CFL costs $4 and up, with the best ones going for $10 or more. The problem these days is too many people look solely at price.

Don't forget there are plenty of cheap, low quality incandescents out there also. The better makes (Philips, GE) cost $1.50 or more each. As for cheap incandescents, does Satco ring a bell with anybody? Not only did they not even come close to rated life (we were lucky to get maybe 250 hours out of most of them, if that) but when they did go the bulb had a nasty habit of breaking off from the base when you tried to remove it. This left you to use pliers to remove the base from the socket, and hope the fixture was wired correctly so that you didn't get juiced when the switch was off.

If nothing else, decent CFLs reduce the annoying task of buying and changing light bulbs to a once every few years occurance. They easily pay for themselves just in replacement bulb savings alone whether you compare cheap CFLs to cheap incandescents or decent CFLs to decent incandescents.

This "CFL lottery" (meaning you often don't know if a given CFL will be worth the price) would be moot if sales of linear tubes for residential use were encouraged more instead of CFLs, and nice fixtures for those tubes were made. For the most part, it's pretty hard to find a lousy quality linear tube fixture these days, and the tubes themselves are more consistent in quality among manufacturers than CFLs, as well as being 50% more efficient.

[ledlurker]

I have converted the high use lights in my house to CFL but had not aken the plunge for all. I would need 33 R-40's and 4 R-30 to convert completely over. The R-30's get the most use because of locations over the sink, mantel and Study art. I recently found a GE CFL R-30 softwhite that matches my current incandescent R-40's. The problem was the local stores in my town to not carry the R-40 equivalent and my internet search could not bring up the brand I had bought. I did find dimmable CFL's on the net but have yet to find anybody that has experience with them. I recently found some R-40's at home depot of a differnt brand but they would not list the color temperature and where $12 a piece. I need just enough to change out my 3 high use rooms (20). the rest of the light get so little use that it would not be worth it since we are moving in two years. I have lights in my house that get turned on to only prove that they work, the builder of the house said the building code required some of the bulbs in the loony locations they where placed. Seems entry ways (16 to 20 square feet) into a room from a hallway are still considered a hallway and must have its own switch for a single lightbulb?

Does anybody now of a good value source for R-40's that are soft white to mach a standard incandescent?

the R-40's on the web averaged anywhere from $13 to $20 apiece. I was looking for a good price on 2 to 3 cases so I would have extras and not worry about matching down the road

[jtr1962]

Try here. Go to the bottom of the page. They have a "value brand" R40 23W CFL in 2700K for $10.99 each, or $9.99 for 12 to 47 pieces. Most of the other R-40s I've seen on the web are $15 and up. This place has some for $12.95 each (presumably less by the case).

The R-40s at Home Depot are likely 2700K to 3000K. As I mentioned in another thread, I have a very hard time finding anything but soft white/warm white CFLs in retail stores. The only exception thus far is the Commercial Electric 19W 6500K spiral carried by Home Depot.

Another much more cost effective option is to buy alumimum reflectors here and use any standard CFL. There are reflectors for R20, R30, R40, and R50.

[brickbat]

[ QUOTE ]
jtr1962 said:
[ QUOTE ]
brickbat said:
Where does the constitution give the gov't the right to regulate such issues???

[/ QUOTE ]
In the part that says the right to life, liberty, and the prursuit of happiness shall not be infringed.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense intended, but that's not in the constitution. At least not in the US constitution. It is in the Declaration of Independence. And it shows up in some state constitutions.

[markdi]

I use cfl's in every fixture in my small home.
I do not buy the cheap ones
but some times the failure rate is unaceptable.
I actually take them apart and fix them.
I need 4 250 volt 47 mfd caps to fix two that failed in my bedroom in a little over a month.
the price difference between cfl and incan buys quite a few kilowat hours
and the parts to fix them are not free.
I can buy 2 incandesent bulbs and a few kilowatt hours
for the price of 1 250 volt 47 mfd cap.

some cfl manufacturers will send you a new one if you send them the bad one but that is more expensive than fixing them.
I only fix ones that fail early in their expected life span.
and I can only fix ballast problems
I save the electronics from bad or failed cfl's
to use to fix infant failures

there should be a better return system
or a heavy tax on the companys that make cfl's
that fail early ( I hate lights of america )

to solve the problem of people just throwing them in the trash make the bad ones worth 25 or 50 cents to return to
a collection point or store like pop can's and bottles.
recycle them

[Unicorn]

Some people are still sensitive to even the new flourescents. My wife will get the occasional headache from them, and it irritates her eyes. Not as bad as the old flickery stuff, but it still happens. Maybe some of it is just mental from such a bad association with the older designs, but until they are totally without that problem, some just can not use them.

[James S]

[ QUOTE ]
there should be a better return system
or a heavy tax on the companys that make cfl's
that fail early ( I hate lights of america )

[/ QUOTE ]

about 5 or 6 years ago I bought a bunch of lights of america lamps for my basement recessed lighting. I liked the 75 watt equivalent ones so much that I purchased 6 or 7 more the following year. Of those first 5 lamps, 4 of them are still in service today. Of the ones in the second batch, they were all dead within a few months, some of them within only a few weeks. It seemed that they changed significantly the quality of the ballast as when the second batch burned out they actually smoked, with acrid burning electronics smoke pouring out of the ballast.

That ruined them for me, I also won't purchase any more of that brand. But I don't know what has happened to their quality control since then.

[jtr1962]

[ QUOTE ]
Unicorn said:
Some people are still sensitive to even the new flourescents. My wife will get the occasional headache from them, and it irritates her eyes. Not as bad as the old flickery stuff, but it still happens. Maybe some of it is just mental from such a bad association with the older designs, but until they are totally without that problem, some just can not use them.

[/ QUOTE ]
While some of it may be a mental association with previous designs, I don't doubt that the improved designs still cause problems with some people. I experience problems myself under many standard CFLs due to the color rendering and the color temp. I'm only completely comfortable under light with a CRI close to or over 90 combined with no flicker, and also with a color temp not too different from sunlight. While all current CFLs use electronic ballasts which eliminate the flicker problem, most designs are triphosphor. This produces good color rendering (most CFLs have a CRI of about 82), but not necessarily "good enough" for people who are particularly sensitive. This fact combined with the usual 2700K color temp of most CFLs can conspire to give some people headaches as the light is not ideal for two reasons. Probably 5000K or thereabouts, even with the same CRI, would cause fewer headaches since the brain is only compensating for a discontinuous spectrum rather than a discontinous spectrum combined with a chromatic adjustment. As I've mentioned a number of times, the brain trying to correct the color balance can cause headaches even under a light source with a CRI of 100 (I know it does for me anyway). I personally find the chromatic adjustment more stressful than the discontinous spectrum. In fact, I was actually more comfortable (but not completely comfortable) under old design cool-whites on a magnetic ballast than I was under incandescents, especially those very yellow low-wattage chandelier bulbs.

Regarding cheap CFLs, don't these things have to pass independent lifetime tests before the manufacturer can state the lifetime on the package? And in order to reduce the amount of landfill, why not make the tubes replaceable? I've taken from dead CFLs and reused for projects perfectly good ballasts that could have lasted through a few more tube replacements. Since the ballast is the most expensive part, why make it "throw away"?

[The_LED_Museum]

[ QUOTE ]
James S said:
about 5 or 6 years ago I bought a bunch of lights of america lamps for my basement recessed lighting...Of the ones in the second batch, they were all dead within a few months, some of them within only a few weeks. It seemed that they changed significantly the quality of the ballast as when the second batch burned out they actually smoked, with acrid burning electronics smoke pouring out of the ballast...

[/ QUOTE ]
I know of a famous light bulb tester that had bad luck with Lights Of America brand CFLs too. Some of them would emit this obnoxious buzzing noise, some burned out very prematurely, and a few of them went spectacularly (smoke and odour) as well.

[markdi]

I think that it would be smart of me to put fixtures that use the straigt fl tubes in the rooms in my house that have built in over head fixtures.

[ledlurker]

People that have MS tend to have problems with CFL's.