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.
Don't forget that CPF is hardly a cross section of the general population. We have many highly educated people here who know when it's worthwhile to spend more on a quality product. The general public only thinks about price. I had a modded Cree light from Deal Extreme which I put a Rebel and multimode driver board into. By CPF standards this is a cheap light, costing less than $20. Yet jaws dropped whenever anyone asked how much it cost. "$19 for a flashlight? It's a cool light but that's crazy I'd never spend more than 3 bucks for a flashlight". Yet some of those same people will drop $7 on a latte each morning at Starbucks, or spend $250 dollars on a pair of shoes or a tie. Go figure. People spend on what's important to them. For most people lighting is an afterthought. They want the cheapest POS which screws into the socket.
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.
Dimming isn't that hard in a purpose built fixture. Even with a triac dimmer it's possible. And the electronics could be small enough in size to fit in any fixture. Why aren't we seeing it yet? For starters because you can't do it and compete with 25 cent incandescents. After that, today's LEDs just aren't efficient enough. Once we get to 150 lm/W or beyond, which will happen by 2010, the amount of waste heat per lumen goes down drastically. At 75 lm/W if we want to replace a 60 watt lamp we need 12 watts, and of that 12 watts about 9 is waste heat. At 150 lm/W we need 6 watts but only half of that, or 3 watts, is waste heat. Get to 200 lm/W and the waste heat is now 1.8 watts. 9 watts requires a pretty large heat sink compared to 3 watts or 1.8 watts. RGB emitters operating at 300 lm/W would give a mere 0.75 watts of heat.
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.
Poor marketing is to blame certainly. Also, the association of LEDs with cheap products is another.
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.
I guess you never worked with the general public. Some are very intelligent. Most however are incapable of demonstrating they're smarter than bugs. I also hate the condescending attitudes nowadays towards those whom you call the elite. I'm tired of people second guessing their doctors because they read something on WebMD or saw a drug commercial. I'm tired of people thinking they know more than scientists or engineers. We used to defer to specialists who studied a subject. Now all we do is question everything they say, or even their methods, while in return offering nothing but our "feelings" as to why they are wrong. A lot people more intelligent and better educated than you or I studied these problems and convinced lawmakers that a law was needed. We're not always privy to all the information our legislators receive, nor should we be. For all we know maybe the grid is on the verge of collapse unless we do something soon. All I know is I'll trust the word of an expert over the emotional rants of the general public.
There are many reasons that people buy incans instead of tubular fluorescents.
Yes, and initial purchase price is pretty high on that list.
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.
The problem here was never batteries but rather willpower. We could have had electric cars 25 years ago if we as a nation decided that's what we want. Bury high-frequency AC power cables in the roads, power the cars on the go via inductive pickup, build as many new nuclear power plants as needed for this. No need for large range on batteries. You need just enough battery power to carry you over a few miles of secondary roads where power cables aren't cost effective. Even lead-acid would suffice. And by carrying very little stored energy the cars would be way safer in a crash. Not to mention since they're tapping into the grid you'll have all the power you need for highway merging, or high-speed running. I know this has little to do with the incandescent ban, but I'm using it to illustrate that sometimes a problem can be solved by thinking outside the box years before any conventional solution exists for it. Point of fact I can think of little reason why cars need to store their own power even if we had much better batteries.
There needs to be a different, non-polluting power source or other forms of transportation, or less transportation or less people.
Agreed, and in principle electric trains already do exactly the same thing as my hypothetical electrified highway, and do it more efficiently also. But until recently we as a nation were highly resistant to public transit. Maybe national HSR is a better solution than electric cars. In fact, by relegating cars mostly to short distance shuttles, HSR could in fact make even short range EVs viable. You kill 2 birds with one stone.
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.
Accept that we may not know all the reasons for bans like this. Suppose the grid is on the verge of collapse? Suppose that the supply of coal and oil isn't as abundant as claimed? Suppose the hospitals are in danger of being overwhelmed by future cancer cases due to air pollution? The general public might never be informed of these things for fear of panic. Rather, they would be mandated to switch to energy saving tachnologies sooner than the free market might dictate. Also, look at the converse. For the last 25 years we've pretty much done nothing to mitigate pollution. This has cost us untold trillions of dollars and affected quality of life in population centers. Had we mandated better pollution controls and built my electrified highway instead the savings may well have outweighed the costs.
I'll close by saying that I'm glad our leaders are finally taking the issues of pollution and energy seriously. There will certainly be good laws and bad laws passed. I'd much rather tax poor alternatives than ban them but I suppose the latter is easier to do logistically. Where our leaders have done a poor job is in convincing most of the general public of the need for these laws. If John Q. Citizen sees that something is in his or his children's long term best interest he is far more likely to willingly support it. The US won 2 world wars by getting the population to sacrifice for the long-term benefit of all. I don't think people have changed much since then. They've just been told the wrong things by those who have a vested interest in the status quo.
:sigh: JTR1962 . I bet I know what political party you align yourself with but I wont say it . so let me get this right...
