No Incan! But what about the oven?

[Blinding]

Every so often I read about a proposed ban on incandescent bulbs. I wonder of they have really considered impact. I use CFL wherever they fit but there are exceptions. No CFL, or even LED, is going to be happy replacing the light in my oven or dryer. They just don't like the heat.

There are a couple of places where LED might work but not CFL. The motion activated lights in my garage and outside have incan. CFLs are just not happy being switched on for 60 seconds and then off again.

A CFL would not work well replacing the bulb in my refrigerator. On the other hand an LED would be great in there. I have to pay to run the bulb and pay again for the frig to remove the heat from the bulb.

If incandescent bulbs are banned I expect to see them smuggled in from Mexico like freon.

 

[acezone]

here in the uk they have stopped selling the high wattage blubs you now can get a halogen inside a "normal" shaped housing
Small oven type blubs are still permitted.

 

[JohnR66]

Special purpose bulbs like appliance bulbs are exempt. I can see people buying them up and using them in lamps and such to get around the ban.

 

[jcvjcvjcvjcv]

I know some that are stocking up on incans in Europe.

It's a ridiculous law, written by disgusting bureaucrats and voted for by treasonous members of the European Parliament.

I guess it adds to the symbolism to use an high-power incan to let the European flag catch fire. :ironic:

But don't worry about the light in your refrigerator, they will come after the whole thing in time...

Anyway, in the USA they can't ban those buls so easily as in the EU. The EU is based on the idea of ever closer political union, with on the top an unelected commision packed with former communist party members who just fell short of achieving a comparable totalitarian function 20+ years ago behind the iron curtain. Just FYI: only 37% of voters show up for the EP elections. Everyone knows: it doesn't matter a damn what you vote on European Union, it will still continue the way IT wants. :mad:

The USA however, has a constition that says the Federal government can't do anything except what it is granted by the constitution. I don't see banning incan bulbs in there. Yeah, CA might ban them. The Terminator would do all he can to appeal to the next level of climate hysteria so secure a job at the UN or some other ****** up international body, don't you think?

EDIT: This just came up: Now you get a "War on incans" besides the ridiculous "War on drugs". haha, And for the latter: I heard full marijuana legalization is on the November ballot in CA.

 

[blasterman]

I think the EU law is silly as well. I mean seriously, how much less energy does a 75watt halogen use compared to a 75watt standard incan(?).....yeah...some politician REALLY thought that one through.

If the intent is to push people towards CFLs in the U.S. it won't work. Too many junk Chinese CFLs out there with flaky ballasts that wont work with dimmer circuits anyways.

The way to encourage people to move towards more efficient light sources would be to go after the main problem, and that's out-dated residential electrical codes. Give a tax or energy credit to new homes built *without* standard incan sockets, and/or using dedicated efficient light fixtures, and the problem eventually fixes itself. Lazy architects pepper the ceilings of new houses with more holes than a miniature golf course, and it needs to stop. Be nice if this were done 10 years ago during the start of the building boom, but there's no bad time to start.

My intuition is that energy prices are going to start going up again, and when they do will do so rapidly, and this will force consumers to make the cheap solution - CFLs.

 

[jcvjcvjcvjcv]

It really is a absurd ban.

Anyway; this is funny, if it wasn't true:

The Euro Condom consists of a thin, heat-resistant silicone cover that turns a
clear bulb into a frosted one. Frosted bulbs will be banned by the new EU guideline
on light sources beginning September 2009, because they are said give off less
light than clear bulbs. But according to the specifications of various manufacturers
the difference, measured in lumens, is negligible or not existing. – Protect yourself
from stupid rules, use the Euro Condom!

And they are really about to ban everything:
http://www.gloeilampenverbod.nl/sit...f?phpMyAdmin=8729447211325d1f1c60369f3afd638b

Oh, two parties in my country say they feel sorry and say they are deceived by Philips. Yeah, right...

 

[jcvjcvjcvjcv]

I think the EU law is silly as well. I mean seriously, how much less energy does a 75watt halogen use compared to a 75watt standard incan(?).....yeah...some politician REALLY thought that one through.

THEY WILL BAN THE HALOGENS TOO
See PDF above:

Halogens Energylabel E and F: banned since September 2009

September 2016: Energylabel 'C' Halogens banned.
All Halogens with unclear glass: BANNED

Oh btw... it was Greenpeace AND Philips lobbying for the ban

This is from the same institution that tries to ban vitamins, herbs and approves GMO food. Let them die from E951 overdose... please. (That's aspartame btw, but all bad stuff is hidden behind an Exxx number on the package. So nobody knows what it says, but it does say: "E is an by the EG approved substance"

Oh btw: last year (2009) three MEP's have been beaten up in Brussels. Got to love the multiculturalism...

 

[riccardo]

European parliament should be closed and member sent to forced work, at best. Europe as we know it is gone, and that's it.

sad but true

 

[jtr1962]

The way to encourage people to move towards more efficient light sources would be to go after the main problem, and that's out-dated residential electrical codes. Give a tax or energy credit to new homes built *without* standard incan sockets, and/or using dedicated efficient light fixtures, and the problem eventually fixes itself. Lazy architects pepper the ceilings of new houses with more holes than a miniature golf course, and it needs to stop. Be nice if this were done 10 years ago during the start of the building boom, but there's no bad time to start.

I'll go one step further-require dedicated efficient light fixtures in new construction, and give a tax credit for replacing existing fixtures. The odd thing is in the 1960s and 1970s they were actually putting tube fixtures in kitchens and baths, even if the rest of the house was still incandescent. Then in the 1980s someone got the bright idea to stick high hats everywhere. But yes, we need building codes which make energy-efficient lighting non-optional. That includes outside as well. I've seen a few McMansions here lit with about 2kW of low-wattage incandescents outside. A few 50 or 75 watt metal halides would have given more light with 1/10 the power.

 

[jcvjcvjcvjcv]

No, just NO.

Government is grossly incompetent to describe what type of lighting you should have.

You want to tell them what you should eat? Suck it up with GMO corn, high-fructose corn syrup, soja and aspartame. Any takers?

The first thing any parliament should do around the world is repudiate all sovereign debt and close the central banks. :hitit:

 

[blasterman]

I'll go one step further-require dedicated efficient light fixtures in new construction, and give a tax credit for replacing existing fixtures.

I hear that. I don't think builders would complain much, but it might require your average residential architect to go back to night school.

What's totally goofy is that jo-blow home owner upgrades his home with triple pane - argon filled state of the art windows.

He then burns a kilowatt of recessed lights 18hours a day, and all the windows do is insure his central air works that much harder keeping those bulbs cool. :thumbsup:

I'm house sitting for a relative right now, and just happen to be in the basement of such a McMansion. I'm also staring across an artificial lake at about a dozen or so homes in that exact scenario (half of which are flipped floor plans much to the ignorance of the owners). Not trying to be a tree hugger or anything, but I have to ask how the frak do these people afford this crap, and how many villages in S America sustain themselves on less resources? My house is 70years older and my electric bill is 1/5 of theirs.

Government is grossly incompetent to describe what type of lighting you should have.

Government should be regulating energy usage for homes the same way they should be regulating things like cafe' standards for vehicles, except more seriously.

 

[deadrx7conv]

Use a flashlight for the oven or externally mounted oven spotlight for when checking the goods that are baking.

Incan's shouldn't be banned. They should be grossly taxed as there will be places that they will need to be used.

I can picture billions of fixtures, lamps, housings.....filling up the landfills that will need to be replaced with fixtures compatible with CFL, LED, LVD... bulbs.

Environmentalists and the eco-green crowd are too narrow minded and ignorant to considered ANY impacts. The feel-good feeling overrides ALL side effects.

 

[Steve K]

No CFL, or even LED, is going to be happy replacing the light in my oven or dryer. They just don't like the heat.

simple...

that gadget composed of a hot wire in a glass envelope will now be called a heating element when used in an oven. Problem solved. :-)

Steve K.

 

[jcvjcvjcvjcv]

Government should be regulating energy usage for homes the same way they should be regulating things like cafe' standards for vehicles, except more seriously.

NO

These emission standards for cars are apparently only valid for personal vehicles. I see multiple busses driving past my house every day without any passengers or just one. Now THAT is inefficient!

Also, these ridiculous environmental standards cause cars to be less safe. To cut weight, they cut safety. There is just no way I feel safe driving in a 800 Kg Toyota Aygo on the highways (120 km/h). Driving a 1300 Kg VW Passat feels a lot better. The climate hysterics be damned, I'm not gonna drive a coffin with a 1.0 motor. Oh btw: in 99% of the time I use the train to get somewhere that I can't reach by bike. It's just that the government runs the train.... so the train has problems... often. And so it was that the provincial government still wonders why the highway keeps filling up. :whistle:

Also keep in mind that this incan ban came into being after lobbying by Philips. Yes, that's right, Philips! They can't compete with China on the simple incan bulbs. They can compete on CFL and LED however. So they abused the legislature to eliminate the marketshare of their competition.

That's not environmental, that's crony capitalism.

Also, all these stupid rules for people to do high initial investments. When a young couple buys a simple house, they probably don't have the money to buy all the handy stuff. That comes over time.

Home isolation is also such an overhyped thing. I don't heat my bedroom in the winter and don't aircondition it in the summer. Why on earth would a government force me to isolate it? For what purpose? The thing that happens is that more environmental unfriendly isolation is made and that I won't have the money to buy solar panels.

My local townhall is being 'upgraded' right now. The square in front of it now has LED lighting under the furniture and plants. Disgusting blueish LED's. It has to be the most ridiculous idea ever. Maybe it was meant to drive away the homeless, I don't know.

Over all I can say that government buildings are the ones wasting the most energy. Before they force me to waste my money on things I don't want or need they should use my tax money to improve public buildings. Even if it's freezing outside, the public library is still 77 F. The same with townhall, hospital, schools, etc. But not the post office anymore, because that was privatized (well, overall that was a giant fckup, but at least one bright side).

And the new rules on asbestos are also quite ridiculous. Any home build before 1993 in my country must have a 'asbestos-free' certificate when you want to sell it. Well, that probably means that a lot of babyboomers are going to cut the asbestos out of their homes themselves, cutting it in smaller pieces in the backyard with the jigsaw and bring it to the citydump. Isn't it healthy to get the homes asbestos free?

The left recently also scored a victory on energy labels for homes. They concluded it was only used in 3% of the sales (basicly: nobody gives a damn about an energy label on a home), so they made it mandatory. "In the past the buyer often had to choose: no label, or pay $500 extra. Now the buyer doesn't have that problem." And so it was that everyone has to pay $500 extra. And another giant fraudulent sector of 'home energy-label consultants' was born. :ohgeez:

Also a big :thumbsdow for washing at 30 degrees C (86F). It leaves all kinds of crap on clothing, handkerchiefs and towels. Instead of telling people to wash cold they should tell them to use a hotfill washing machine. In my country we have the most fine network of gaspipes of the world. Nearly every home uses gas to heat water, much more efficient then using electricity to heat water for washing. And also: it's much faster for the washing machine.

I'm all for solar panels btw. A great way to make sure you have some degree of indepence from career politicians and their big industry friends.

 

[blasterman]

These emission standards for cars are apparently only valid for personal vehicles. I see multiple busses driving past my house every day without any passengers or just one. Now THAT is inefficient!

If you honestly believe that mass transit is less efficient than your car, then all I can say is enjoy your ditto-head T-shirt.

Also, these ridiculous environmental standards cause cars to be less safe. To cut weight, they cut safety.

I live in Michigan with pretty nasty weather in the winter, and 90% of the cars I see flipped over in the ditch in February after a snowstorm are Detroit land yachts. The college kids in the little Honda Civics and Toyota Corollas keep zooming by.

Also, contrary to your claims of better safety, these don't mesh with Western Europe where vehicles are much smaller thanks to radically higher gas prices and insurance rates that work against higher engine displacement.

American cars are big and have poor milege because gas has been cheap and the rest of the planet (until recently) has been subsidizing the bad habits of the U.S. consumer. Guess what - parties over, but blame it on City Hall if you wish.

Why on earth would a government force me to isolate it?

You want to subsidize building new powerplants, or increase the efficiency of homes and build fewer powerplants? Also, the insolation consiparcy you rant about is based on a scenario where energy prices are going to stay at their current level, which they aren't. The new couple buying a home is increasingly better off with any increasing degree of energy savings because the residential sector is still in the dark ages. The recent trend for new houses has been a fairly substantial decrease in footprint and increase in energy efficiency, but it doesn't change the long term glut of McMansions on the market.

 

[Random Guy]

Also keep in mind that this incan ban came into being after lobbying by Philips. Yes, that's right, Philips! They can't compete with China on the simple incan bulbs. They can compete on CFL and LED however. So they abused the legislature to eliminate the marketshare of their competition.

Philips isn't competing with China produced products in the incan market, they're selling them.

 

[jcvjcvjcvjcv]

If you honestly believe that mass transit is less efficient than your car, then all I can say is enjoy your ditto-head T-shirt.

Oh yeah it's inefficient to use a 18 meter bus to transport 2 passangers from the trainstation in the city to a smaller village 4 miles down the road at 11 PM while all the smaller buses are parked at the station. Each day, every day.

I live in Michigan with pretty nasty weather in the winter, and 90% of the cars I see flipped over in the ditch in February after a snowstorm are Detroit land yachts. The college kids in the little Honda Civics and Toyota Corollas keep zooming by.

Well, at least you have a better shot at survinving landing in the ditch. But once your car is there, it's a lot easier to pull out an 800 Kg coffin.

Also, contrary to your claims of better safety, these don't mesh with Western Europe where vehicles are much smaller thanks to radically higher gas prices and insurance rates that work against higher engine displacement.

Yes, and now imagine a huge step lighter and smaller of the average western european car and you get a driving coffin. Ever driven 120 km/h (75mph) in a Citroen AX? You sit in each side's crumple zone. No thanks.

American cars are big and have poor milege because gas has been cheap and the rest of the planet (until recently) has been subsidizing the bad habits of the U.S. consumer. Guess what - parties over, but blame it on City Hall if you wish.

And because of inefficient motors! Yes, the market itself figures out a way to deal with resource scarcity. No big government needed!
Now, the funny thing is that this rise in oil prices doesn't inflict a huge rise in prices at the european gaspump. If the oil prices doubles, the price of a gallon of gas will only increase a few percent here due to fixed-rate taxes. In the US, the relative change is bigger. In some way, the european taxes are dampening the signal given by higher oil prices: consume less.

As far as subsidizing the US consumer: well, you can't have an empire AND a decent set of social services AND relatively low taxes, like the US. You need to cut one. Either a massive tax increase (what will kill the economy ; no option) or a massive cut in entitlements (kinda hard to sell in the electorate) or a massive cut in military spending and foreign bases. Any takers? The US got away with it because the US dollar is the world reserve currency. That status was earned when it was a gold-backed currency. That's not so anymore. So a lot of countries export goods to the USA, and the US exports pieces of paper. And as soon as everybody wakes up to the reality of a instable fiat currency (US Dollar) it's over with the massive overconsumption in the US. Any other country would've been cut off much ealier in the rush because nobody else has a currency with the status of the US dollar.

You want to subsidize building new powerplants, or increase the efficiency of homes and build fewer powerplants?

I want people to insolate their homes voluntarily because it will pay off in less energy use in the future. NOT by government dictate under the inspection of some overpaid bureaucrat.
Powerplants aren't subsidized anyway.

Also, the insolation consiparcy you rant about is based on a scenario where energy prices are going to stay at their current level, which they aren't. The new couple buying a home is increasingly better off with any increasing degree of energy savings because the residential sector is still in the dark ages.

There is a limit on what you can invest on the start. Now, you could borrow money to insolate your home and with these phony interest rates it will probably pay off. But wait... how did we got in this economic crises? Did I hear artificially low interest induces bad loans? :sssh:

The recent trend for new houses has been a fairly substantial decrease in footprint and increase in energy efficiency, but it doesn't change the long term glut of McMansions on the market.

Sure, it's much easier to build it right from the start. The question is why you trust the government to make investment decisions for individuals while the goverment can't do anything right themselves, fiscally. The budget deficit is huge in almost every western nation, as is the debt.

And with a home owner that can't pay his oversized mortgage (oversized because of added insolation cost) we know he ends up without a home. And we know it's a lot easier to stay warm in a uninsolated home that isn't heated then under a bridge.

And it just happens to be some government agencies (Fannie, Freddy) that keep those empty homes off the market. Yes, that's right. How is that for responsible resource use?

Also, the McMansions will drop in price as energy prices rise. Thus, the market will fix the problem of the McMansions. They will become cheaper because they are more expensive to live in. And so it will be easier to buy one and insolate. On the energy prices: Obama stated in his 2008 campaign that as a consequence of his policies energy prices will skyrocket. Now just FYI: cap and trade (scam and tax) has nothing to do with mother earth. It's just another scheme of indulgences. And BP wants it! So go figure who will benefit...

Philips isn't competing with China produced products in the incan market, they're selling them.

Anyway: there is more profit for them if the market share of incans is transfered into CFL / LED.

 

[LEDninja]

Here is a list of exemptions of the incandescent ban.
http://members.misty.com/don/incban.html

"...
5. Many Specialty Types:
appliance
..."

 

[carrot]

I was thinking, what will happen to the EZ Bake Oven?

 

[jtr1962]

Also, these ridiculous environmental standards cause cars to be less safe. To cut weight, they cut safety. There is just no way I feel safe driving in a 800 Kg Toyota Aygo on the highways (120 km/h). Driving a 1300 Kg VW Passat feels a lot better. The climate hysterics be damned, I'm not gonna drive a coffin with a 1.0 motor.

Weight does not equal safety. That's more a function of the car's design and restraint system. If we can make race cars where the driver walks away from a crash into a wall at 200 mph, then we can certainly design an 800 kg or even 500 kg vehicle which will keep its occupants safe in a crash at half that speed. Adding weight is the lazy man's road to safety, and in fact it's counterproductive. A lighter vehicle might be able to avoid an accident altogether. Maybe the real problem is lax driver licensing, especially in the states. IMO, upwards of 75% of the populice lacks the coordination and judgement to safety operate a motor vehicle, regardless of how much training they receive. Licensing standards should weed out that 75+%, and then we won't have to worry about crash safety because there will hardly be any crashes.

Also keep in mind that this incan ban came into being after lobbying by Philips. Yes, that's right, Philips! They can't compete with China on the simple incan bulbs. They can compete on CFL and LED however. So they abused the legislature to eliminate the marketshare of their competition.

That's not environmental, that's crony capitalism.

Also, all these stupid rules for people to do high initial investments. When a young couple buys a simple house, they probably don't have the money to buy all the handy stuff. That comes over time.

And your point is? We're not talking about a huge investment here to outfit a house with energy efficient lighting. I can do this for under $50 US per room. Go to Home Depot, but a halfway decent 2 or 4 tube 32W T8 fixture, buy some decent high-CRI tubes, take out the old bulb fixture, install the tube fixture, and there you go. 5 to 6 times more light per watt than incandescent. It would be even easier if builders used flush-mount tube fixtures in new construction. Frankly, it looks no worse than having a dozen holes in your ceiling, but offers much better efficiency.

Or if we insist on sticking with screw-base fixtures for some arcane reason, so you might have to invest roughly the same per room or a little more to get LED screw-base lamps. Again, not a hefty investment compared to buying the house in the first place, and it pays for itself within a few years anyway. It also avoids the aggravation of changing out lamps every few weeks ( that's about how long those incandescents from China last ).

Seriously, if someone's budget is so tight they can't afford some lighting upgrades, then maybe they really can't afford the house in the first place. We're talking perhaps $500 US tops for an average house here. This isn't a show-stopper.

Home isolation is also such an overhyped thing. I don't heat my bedroom in the winter and don't aircondition it in the summer. Why on earth would a government force me to isolate it? For what purpose? The thing that happens is that more environmental unfriendly isolation is made and that I won't have the money to buy solar panels.

Whether it pays depends upon the average climate. In much of the US we have very hot summers and cold winters. Air conditioning is not only necessary for comfort, but also in many cases simply to survive. Right now in NYC we're going through 3 weeks of mostly 90s temperatures and humidity in the 70% or higher range. You can't survive this without air conditioning. Even with A/C the house isn't very comfortable. In light of this I wish the government here did require isolation on homes years ago. Our home costs a fortune to heat or cool, even with the more efficient double-pane windows we installed in 1994. Adding isolation now would be much more costly than if it had been installed when the house was built in 1952.

Maybe where you live the climate is much more moderate. Here climate control is the rule, and isolation makes it less costly.

I'm all for solar panels btw. A great way to make sure you have some degree of indepence from career politicians and their big industry friends.

On that I agree, and frankly I wish it was a requirement on new homes. No good reason a private home can't generate some or even all of its own electric.

Also, the McMansions will drop in price as energy prices rise. Thus, the market will fix the problem of the McMansions. They will become cheaper because they are more expensive to live in.

Actually, the problem is already fixing itself. Many of these McMansions were cheap wood frame construction which will need major repairs within 25 years. However, given that many were built in suburbs or even exurbs, they will likely be abandoned as the roads to them fall into disrepair for lack of funds. The trend in the US is moving away from McMansions on 1 acre in exurbs, and towards smaller housing and denser living. Many suburbs are destined to become ghost towns.