EU ban of 100W incan bulbs - Sept 2009

[jtr1962]

I predict that forcing people to change to fluorescent or LED lighting will cause a dramatic increase in stress related illnesses, tiredness, accidents and other problems. Every action taken by lawmakers has unintended consequences.

I tend to disagree here. We've already had non-incandescent lighting in most business and industrial setting for years. If anything, accidents have gone down due to the ability to light to brighter levels than is economically possible with incandescent. Second, just as with flourescents, I'm sure LEDs will be available in a bunch of different color temperatures and color rendering grades. Yes, the higher color rendering grades will probably be more, but then again the people who care about such things would be willing to pay more. Third, and most importantly, LED will give us the ability to duplicate sunlight better than any prior technology. Sunlight is healthier for you than any other type of light. Incandescent has never been either natural or optimum. It's a blackbody spectrum but the similarity ends there. Just as many people get headaches under incandescent light as under other kinds of suboptimal light.

Unfortunately, the inertia of people to change as well as the desire by businesses to sell a product which is not long lasting (hence generating an income stream) means unless there are laws banning incandescent lamps they will probably continue to be used in large numbers. Many people won't even look at alternatives so long as they can purchase cheap incandescent lamps. In such a market there is little incentive to develop better CFLs or LEDs. Indeed, after something like 20 years the market penetration of CFLs is still well under 20% IIRC. That basically illustrates my point. We can't expect alternatives to get better unless the competition is phased out by fiat. Government pushing new technologies is nothing new. They helped start the railroads, built roads for autos, etc. Sometimes the government picks the wrong technologies but most of the time they get it right. LEDs are already better by most measures than what they're replacing. Mass production should take care of the cost factor. Competition between LED makers for market share should result in lamps with better quality light.

This is not quite true. All the lights in my house are on dimmers, and my usual lighting level is incan bulbs dimmed to about 1/3 brightness. You cannot dim xenon/halogen bulbs like that without damaging them.

A mix of amber and red LEDs would give a similar effect and probably use 1/20 of the power. You do know that dimmed incandescents are far less efficient. I think at 1/3 brightness you're still using 2/3rds of the power. Besides that, RGB LED promises variable color temperature dimming if that's what the person wants. Personally, I can't stand dimmed incandescent. It gives me a migraine headache in about 30 seconds.

 

[jtr1962]

They may have epilepsy and can't tolerate the flickering of an aging florescent bulb or the 60 hertz flickering of an l.e.d. They may want to use a heat lamp in a bathroom to keep warm instead of using a heater that takes up too much space and causes a skin burn and fire risk.

First off, it was 120 Hz flicker. Note the operative word-WAS. Modern fluorescents on electronic ballasts don't flicker, and an LED driven by a constant-current circuit (which is the only way to drive them without greatly shortening life) won't flicker either. Second, who said heat lamps will be banned? Heat lamps were never used for illumination. In fact, they barely make any light. They shouldn't be affect by laws like this.

 

[2xTrinity]

See comment above. LED light is not "natural" (and cannot be -- consider tint lottery), and if you dim them they don't change to a warmer color like incans do.

Oddly enough I actually consider this an advantage. This is why I actually prefer the three-level approach for dimming incans for things like desk/reading lamps. I find the lower color temp harder to see with.

Dimmable fluorescent lamps (at least, the household variety) on the other hand have the opposite effect of getting cooler in color (and with worse CRI) because of the temperature dependence of the lamp causing it to perform sub-optimally.

Oddly enough, I've never seen this problem in commercial dimmable T8 (4-foot) fluorescent fixtures, which even dim to lower fractions of output than the "dimmable CFLs" There the color temp really does stay the same (compared to other fixtures that are NOT dimmed side-by-side).

Nevertheless, one idea that I think would be interesting woudl be a lamp with multiple emitetrs, some cooler white and some very warm, that could change its effective color temp by tweaking the ratio between the two OR offer dimming WITHOUT changing color temp if so desired, as separate parameters. While this would be a great toy IMO, I doubt anything this complex wil be anywhere near affordable on the timeframe imposed by these laws.

I also generally tend to disagree with laws, particularly the ones in California which mandate specific TYPES of technology be used in certain places, even if that may not even be the most efficient for the circmstances. This EU one, though wider in scope, at least specifies efficiency classes (irrespective of technolgy type) that amounts to a de-facto ban on incans, rather than an explicit restriction on them. I believe these sorts of building codes are one of the reasons the residental energy efficient products are so shoddily designed. Due to lack of competition, there is no incentive for companies to improve their product if nothing else -- even potentially more efficient designs -- are allowed to compete due to the law.

First off, it was 120 Hz flicker. Note the operative word-WAS. Modern fluorescents on electronic ballasts don't flicker, and an LED driven by a constant-current circuit (which is the only way to drive them without greatly shortening life) won't flicker either. Second, who said heat lamps will be banned? Heat lamps were never used for illumination. In fact, they barely make any light. They shouldn't be affect by laws like this.

The point about heat-lamp does raise an interesting point. For example, my apartment has all electric appliances and heating. In these cases, generating waste heat from inefficient appliances and incandescent lamps in no more costly than running an electric space heater* (though in southern California I almost never need heating anyway).

In fact, in my case, the fact my apartment is all electric works to my economic advantage -- California utilities charge electricity on a graduated scale (simialr to graduated income tax). Homes that are designated as all-electric have a much higher allowance for electricity usage before the marginal rates start to go up.



*In my case, rather than using the wall heaters that came with the apartment, I have on occasion used portable space heaters, type ceramic heaters, to heat particular *spaces* such as a the viscinity of a desk or couch currently in use, rather than the whole apartment. In reality I suspsect very few will actually do this however given the choice...

 

[jtr1962]

Mercury ... CFL ... danger .... ???
What?
Never even heard of that.

By the time the bans kick in, LED will have already obsoleted CFL. As it is now, I stopped buying CFLs in anticipation of halfway decent, reasonably-priced LED bulbs a year or two from now. I'm really looking forwards to purpose-built LED fixtures however. LED screw-in lamps are just a kludge. LEDs last long enough to just make a fixture with built-in emitters. It would be more efficient, flatter, and better looking than the screw-in bulb fixture it replaces.

Maybe they're going about this wrong. Just ban sale of any screw-base lamps and fixtures, or at least prohibit screw-based fixtures in new construction.

 

[Mr Happy]

I tend to disagree here. We've already had non-incandescent lighting in most business and industrial setting for years. If anything, accidents have gone down due to the ability to light to brighter levels than is economically possible with incandescent.

With brightness related to accidents in the workplace, yes. But I work in a windowless office lit by tubes, and I find it an awful space to inhabit. It saps my focus and concentration. Maybe I can see better to perform tasks, but it doesn't help my mood.

At home I certainly use pools of bright light where needed, for reading or cooking for example. However, most of the time, in most of the house, high brightness levels are not needed at all. So I suppose LEDs would be an option for background lighting if the color spectrum could be sorted out.

Yes, I know dimming is not quite as efficient as low wattage bulbs. As a rough estimation I go by the dimmer setting; if it is physically at half way, I assume half power. I also tend to put 40 W bulbs in many fixtures rather than 60's or 100's.

 

[2xTrinity]

By the time the bans kick in, LED will have already obsoleted CFL. As it is now, I stopped buying CFLs in anticipation of halfway decent, reasonably-priced LED bulbs a year or two from now. I'm really looking forwards to purpose-built LED fixtures however. LED screw-in lamps are just a kludge. LEDs last long enough to just make a fixture with built-in emitters. It would be more efficient, flatter, and better looking than the screw-in bulb fixture it replaces.

Maybe they're going about this wrong. Just ban sale of any screw-base lamps and fixtures, or at least prohibit screw-based fixtures in new construction.

They are already micro-managing what sorts of lights people may install in California in new constructions, and they aer specifying (IMO) very BAD things in almost all cases, like ubiquitous recessed cans... If they must mandate SOMETHING, I would much rather see mandated flush-mountable fluorescent or LED fixtures with dimming ballasts, similar to what I have seen in commercial applications. (note: NOT kludgy "dimmable CFL" ballasts that try to work with triac incan dimmers).

Even the non-screw-in fixtures in all new residences are directly trying to EMULATE screw based fixtrues (eg, using the 2-pin CFLs). IMO I, like you, would like to see a shift away from that entire paradigm, to things like flush mountable LED panels with purpose-built optics to efficient direct light to where it is actually useful. I'm afraid it won't happen however due to hesistnce on the part of consumers (and home developers/contractors) to change, which is being reinforced by regulations.

 

[Kiessling]

Purpose-built fixtures would mean I have to look for a different one for each purpose. Very tiring, time-consuming and a big mess. And if it needs to be replaced (I wanna live longer in my house than t1/2 of a LED) ... the new purpose-built fixtures won't be compatible with my house, and then the poop hits the fan.

All that is not a problem with a generally accepted standard for bulbs. I prefer that.

bernie

 

[dano]

You are kidding, right?

Every shop here has shelves stacked high with low-priced CFL's imported from China. How many of those do you think actually get recycled, rather than just dumped in the trash and sent to the land fills? (And what about all the hazardous industrial waste produced by those Chinese factories? What do you suppose happens to that?)

I'm not kidding. Check out the EPA's stance on broken CFL's:http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#flourescent

There's not a lot of mercury in a CFL, but when they become the main source of lighting (and probably forced on us by the dumb-arse Govt.) the mercury from them may become an issue.

 

[jtr1962]

*In my case, rather than using the wall heaters that came with the apartment, I have on occasion used portable space heaters, type ceramic heaters, to heat particular *spaces* such as a the viscinity of a desk or couch currently in use, rather than the whole apartment. In reality I suspsect very few will actually do this however given the choice...

I've been doing this for years. I actually prefer it to space heating in that the heat is immediate, and can be at higher levels than economically feasible if you were to heat the entire space. Often a ceramic heater on low (~500 watts) is sufficient for comfort. It sure beats a few kW to heat the entire space.

IMO I, like you, would like to see a shift away from that entire paradigm, to things like flush mountable LED panels with purpose-built optics to efficient direct light to where it is actually useful. I'm afraid it won't happen however due to hesistnce on the part of consumers (and home developers/contractors) to change, which is being reinforced by regulations.

It would only happen if regulations specifically banned screw-type lamps AND didn't favor any particular technology. I suspect manufacturers who make can lights and cheap residential fluorescent fixtures were behind California's energy efficiency laws. Also, I tend to think laws should focus more on overall fixture efficiency than emitter efficiency. Here, LED would win hands down over everything else. Even a T8 tube fixture is probably under 70 lm/W once you count the light losses in the fixture.

And no need to worry about replacing LED fixtures if they're well-designed. By underdriving along with massively heat-sinking you can get lifetimes probably in excess of 200,000 hours, if not more. That's 91 years if used 6 hours per night.

 

[Lightguy27]

There are some exemptions like:

"Under conditions, special purpose incandescent lamps (e.g. those used in household
appliances such as ovens or fridges, traffic lights, infrared lamps) are exempted from the requirements of the regulation.."​

Why would the exempt traffic lights which brieght efficient LEDs are perfectly suited for? You need no color rendition to shine bright through a green of red lens... :shrug:

 

[jtr1962]

With brightness related to accidents in the workplace, yes. But I work in a windowless office lit by tubes, and I find it an awful space to inhabit. It saps my focus and concentration. Maybe I can see better to perform tasks, but it doesn't help my mood.

I wouldn't be surprised if your office is lit by T12 cool-white tubes on a magnetic ballast. You might try opening the fixture just to take a look. Unfortunately, especially in the US, workplaces don't give a whole lot of thought to lighting. I've seen mostly crappy type tubes, usually of mixed types.The EU is worlds ahead in that regard as far as requiring certain minimum standards for both level and quality of light. Germany has banned sale of the the low-CRI cool white tubes for quite a while. I honestly can't think of a single good reason why they should continue to be sold. Same with magnetic ballast fixtures. Cheap isn't good if half your employees suffer from poor productivity or call in sick more.

IMO, the minimum standard for CRI for any interior lighting should be 85, with 90 being even better. Commodity T8 tubes with CRI 85 or 86 are readily available and inexpensive. They pay for themselves in terms of energy savings over the T12s. Factor in better employee productivity, and they actually save money. I don't get why ALL businesses haven't switched.

 

[Guy's Dropper]

This is going to spell the beginning of an illicit underground bulb trade in Europe.

 

[Mr Happy]

I'm not kidding. Check out the EPA's stance on broken CFL's:http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#flourescent

There's not a lot of mercury in a CFL, but when they become the main source of lighting (and probably forced on us by the dumb-arse Govt.) the mercury from them may become an issue.

You misunderstand me. I'm not denying the hazards of CFL, I'm merely drawing attention to the large gap that undoubtedly exists between the EPA's stance on the matter and what millions of ordinary consumers do in practice.

 

[Mr Happy]

This is going to spell the beginning of an illicit underground bulb trade in Europe.

Well now, don't be so quick to laugh. It's already happening in Australia.

 

[Guy's Dropper]

Seriously?! I was impressed by the originality of my joke, which, for me, is a very rare occurrence. I'm not a very funny person. Now I find out that this has already started. Way to burst my bubble.:shakehead

 

[american lockpicker]

You are kidding, right?

Every shop here has shelves stacked high with low-priced CFL's imported from China. How many of those do you think actually get recycled, rather than just dumped in the trash and sent to the land fills? (And what about all the hazardous industrial waste produced by those Chinese factories? What do you suppose happens to that?)

I recycled one today. All you have to do is go to the Home Depot and take it to customer service and they will bag it for you and put it in a bin to be recycled.

 

[jirik_cz]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I bet they won't.

They already are...

Cree LR6 donwlight:
12W/650 lumens
2700-3500K
92CRI
dimmable down to 20%
50000 lifetime.

 

[Timothybil]

IMO, the minimum standard for CRI for any interior lighting should be 85, with 90 being even better. Commodity T8 tubes with CRI 85 or 86 are readily available and inexpensive. They pay for themselves in terms of energy savings over the T12s. Factor in better employee productivity, and they actually save money. I don't get why ALL businesses haven't switched.

Mainly because here in America, no one except maybe MBAs have been taught about Life Cycle Costing, and very few lighting decisions get up to the level of the MBAs. Most lighting decisions are made by people whose major goal is to spend as little as possible, because they are under the control of anal-retentive bean counters whose only concern is keeping 'this quarter' costs as low possible.

 

[jzmtl]

Another retarded law. Incan bulbs are 100% efficient in cold winter, which I duno, most of EU countries have?

 

[LuxLuthor]

ROFL on all aspects of this discussion. I already bought more incan bulbs for all fixtures in my home than I will need for the rest of my life. We already had this discussion in Cafe section. I continue to be amazed at people believing that something like this being forced on people is a good thing.