Who are the "many" who object to this? I'm not even sure it's a majority on CPF.
You may want to look up the definition of "many." It is clear in this thread alone, that the term is being used properly.
"Many" is not necessarily a majority, but I didn't say "majority." I am 100% certain that there are "many" who object...and with very good reason. There are many others who object and may not have any real reason. They are the wavering sheep.
The general population probably couldn't care less one way or another so long as it emits light and is cheap to buy.
Perhaps. But without some reliable, independent testing and clear working examples that the polling refers to, neither of us can comment on general population opinions. Well, actually we can comment, but our comments hold no more weight than someone saying the moon is made of cheese. I do know there are a lot of members here that can buy cheap sources of light, and they opt for reliable quality instead. Go figure.
Sure, LED isn't there yet for general lighting but it should be by 2010 or 2011 when most of these bans kick in.
And there's a bit of the rub. It should be by 2010 or 2011? Show me the results first, then start talking about bans of mainstream working products. Show me that something is going to dim, that it is going to fit in all my custom made, built-in, recessed lighting sockets. Show me that it will have the desired color spectrums that people want in home/work areas where they spend lots of time. I'm not seeing it in LED's yet.
The biggest problem remains cost. The other problems either have been or are being addressed. The only way the cost problem will be solved is via mass production, but mass production may never happen so long as LEDs have to compete with ten cent incandescent bulbs.
I don't agree that the biggest problem is cost. In fact there is enough general momentum, use, and development history with LED's that I believe it is an unknown matter of whether LED's will become mainstream, and by when. Certainly one factor of any new technology is cost, but currently larger issues are poor marketing of a number of factors, and current technical development.
What it boils down to is the general public is extremely poor at doing any type of total life cycle analysis. If they did, probably everyone would be using T5 or T8 linear fluorescent tubes as that's currently the cheapest way to make light once you account for power, tube, and fixture cost. And the quality of light from higher grade tubes is perfectly acceptable to the majority. However, all most of the public looks at is initial cost. They buy incandescent lamps as a result. The funny thing is many of the same general public doesn't object to paying hundreds for a chandelier because "Oh, it's pretty!". But if they had to pay $10 instead of $0.25 for a bulb for their $$$$ chandelier they'll throw a hissy fit, even if the bulb would save them many times that over its life. And you expect LED or anything else to compete with that? You're not going to change the general public. Instead, you can do one of two things. Either legislate the less desireable choice out of existence, or tax it to put it on an even price footing. I personally would rather see some sort of tax on incandescent lamps to account for the extra energy usage and the extra landfill costs instead of a ban. At least then "free choice" remains although you must now pay extra for it. To be fair, I'd like a similar tax levied on anything containing hard to dispose of substances such as CFLs. Level the playing field, and LEDs will take over. They probably will anyway on their own merits, but in the two or three decades it will take we might have to build a bunch of otherwise unneeded power plants.
Again, I am much more optimistic about people's good sense than you are. I don't believe that people make all decisions based squarely on a life cycle analysis, nor should they. There are many valid factors, and to dismiss them all under the umbrella that only a select group of elites that know what is best is IMHO, a misguided approach.
There are many reasons that people buy incans instead of tubular fluorescents. It is not such a simple issue, but there were so many specifics in that paragraph that I don't want my main points to get dilluted. I recognized an old debating trick.
Since someone here mentioned electric cars, same argument. Tax the externalities such as pollution and military spending needed to secure oil supplies so that drivers pay the true cost of running gas cars. That basically puts electric cars on an even footing to compete. Just like LEDs, if electric cars are allowed to compete on an even keel they should take over the market on their own merits. But we already have several running EV threads so no need to rehash the same old arguments here.
The issue of electric vehicles is totally separate and unique. It is not at all the same set of issues as incan lighting. Again, other than these ensuing statements, I don't want to dillute my main points by going down the electric car route. Suffice it to say that the early NiMH electric vehicles were not technologically or economically feasible to compete. Even the current rash of electric cars with hopes based on lithium batteries are not feasible for the general population demands, given the worldwide shortage of that element. There needs to be a different, non-polluting power source or other forms of transportation, or less transportation or less people.
On a final note, I wish people would stop seeing only bad in laws like this. It appears few here understand the big picture. Nobody likes to have their choices limited or less desireable choices taxed. That includes me. On a very basic level bans of any kind disgust me but not because they limit my freedom of choice. Rather, they disgust me because a ban is an admission of failure on the part of the government that the majority of the populice won't willingly do something in the general best interests of all (and reducing energy usage/landfill from dead lamps certainly falls into that category). Basically these bans mean the populice is too self-centered to do what is needed, so the government must now force it upon them.
We see some good ideas in energy efficiency, and helping the environment, but in this instance, we focus on the bad when there are many more effective ways of cutting the mustard. If an idea such as a ban is bad at its core, then it deserves to be challenged. It is the arguing back and forth that allows for all decisions to be reached.
In this "ban the incan" instance, first what must be decided is what is the purpose of trying to get a population switched over to LED's instead of incans. Is it to save energy? Is it to help the earth? Is it to provide new technology, new forms of lighting as we see in many flashlights?
If the purpose is to save energy in home power grids, that is a very complex issue. It is one that involves supply and consumption sides of the issue. It involves geography, technology, population growth, nationality related decisions, economic issues, and a host of other topics.
