lighthouse10

RE Swansont comments 1. Any product not meeting a standard is obviously banned. Not allowed = Banned ;-) 2. Energy saving is not the only desirable quality a product can have. If that was so, people would only buy such products. Moreover: Auto or light bulb energy usage standards affect their characteristics. A given car that has to be more fuel efficient = slower and/or lighter (less safe), for example. Similarly, standards do ban the common regular simple incandescent bulb. Halogen type alternatives may be similar, but not the same (whiter, hotter etc) and, again cost more. 3. "Efficiency" is not just about "energy efficency". A fuel guzzling car is likely more efficiently performing (speed etc) than the equivalent forced to use less fuel. Similarly it is much easier to make a bright 100W+ incandescent bulb than a bright CFL or LED equivalent, a constructional efficiency in terms of labor and parts required. >> Unlike others against the ban I am all for saving energy. There are good and bad ways of doing so. Targeting consumer product use is a bad way, and if relevant would hardly be directed at lighting for reasons given. Light bulbs don't burn coal or release CO2 gas. Power plants might - and might not. If there is a problem - deal with the problem. Much more relevant to deal with electricity generation energy efficiency (common old type coal plants 30-35% efficient) or grid distribution (US grid especially), than telling people what products they can or can't use in their homes. There is no energy shortage and if there was, the price rise would reduce use, without regulation. Anyway, targeting consumption including light bulbs leads to little or no overall savings, as referenced. The coal plant issue is as said. Even at peak times, the common hydro/gas turbines kicking in have less CO2 emissions associated. Re Taxes With respect, I think you misunderstood the point... People are not necessarily just hit by taxes in that tax income can be used to lower the prices of alternatives (alternative bulbs, alternative electricity supply), as well as giving government income towards, say, renewable energy projects c 2 billion bulbs of relevant type sold annually in pre-ban USA and EU And that is just light bulbs. Add in alternative tax income possibility on regulated buildings, cars, washing machines etc, which have usage advantages despite a higher energy use (http://ceolas.net/#cc21x) The point too is of course that tax alternatively reduces the sales of targeted products - a presumable objective, simulating bans - so it is a "win-win" situation for governments. Taxation is still unjustifiable compared to market stimulation (new and energy saving bulbs can be helped to market and compete against existing alternatives), but tax is a better alternative than regulation for California type "liberal" cash-strapped governments, that seek to justify high public expenditure, alternative energy subsidies, etc // Sorry this comment is so long - I tried to make new comment but it aggregates up again into one comment! // RE "The expensive LED bulbs will become cheaper in future, on economy of scale" It may seem natural to expect that greater sales means cheaper bulbs. Firstly it does not necessarily hold on supply and demand. Having removed the other bulb choices, there may be insufficient supply for the new demand. That raises rather than lowers prices. Secondly, it is irrelevant how many bulbs are sold, in that manufacturers / distributors / retailers simply charge what they can. Since the cheap competition has been removed, and since there are fewer manufacturers of newer more complex bulbs, there is less pressure to reduce prices (besides which light bulb manufacturers have a history of cartels). Thirdly, on the Government side, pre-ban price lowering subsidies (as in North America and Europe) are no longer seen as so necessary. Fourthly, a reason the ban was sought by the major manufacturers was profitability, on patented new technology compared to patent expired old simple bulbs. As with all other patented products (compare with pharmaceuticals) the price is higher for the duration of the patents. That is not all. CFLs and LEDs contain rare earth elements, the price rise in recent years giving an increase in their prices, as from 2011 news reports. Also they are mostly made in China, where wages are rising, and shipping transport fuel cost has also risen in recent years. Finally, CFLs (and possibly LEDs) will be subject to increasing recycling mandates on manufacturers and retailers, which will again add to consumer purchase cost. In comparison, incandescents are of course more simply and often locally made, and have no recycling requirement. As said, agree about the overall context of not wasting energy, but light bulb regulations are not a good way of going about getting savings.

Certainly true that it is about standards. However, the replacements are 20-25 lumen per W, far from 45 lumen per W - which is technically not possible - or, equally importantly, profitable. One has to be aware that the manufacturers supporting the ban would hardly seek to further improve incandescent technology: What is at the heart of this ban? A subsidised and enforced worldwide replacement of unprofitable patent-expired simple, cheap, well known, safe, and easily locally made bright broad spectrum light bulbs in an odd coalition between global capitalist manufacturing executives, left-leaning governments, and environmental organizations. The specific light bulb manufacturer (GE, Osram/Sylvania, Philips) involvement, http://ceolas.net/#li12ax onwards, referenced. Presumably light bulb bans should be done for Society savings - rather than worrying about what Light Bulb Johnny wants to use in his Bedroom: Individuals might save some with expensive bulbs in common locations, but Society savings are a fraction of 1% of overall energy use or 1% of grid usage, referenced Dept of Energy etc data - and that is still not counting the also referenced manufacture, transport and recycling energy use of the more complex replacements: Coal plants and CO2 emissions: Coal power plants are the main emission culprit. But effectively the same coal is burned at night regardless of what light bulb you use: Coal plants are slow loading steady electricity deliverers, calibrated for higher day use, again referenced. Even if the bulbs (or cars, washing machines, TV sets, computers..) had to be targeted, they could be taxed (tax helping to pay for price-lowering subsidies on alternatives, or give Govmt other income - hello California) or better still, be subject to increased - not decreased- market competition to improve products while keeping choice. The deception behind the arguments used to ban light bulbs and other products http://freedomlightbulb.org/p/deception-behind-banning-light-bulbs.html .

Specific link RE USA, Canada, EU, Australia regulations, http://ceolas.net/#li01inx also with USA amendments and updates and 10 USA state bills (legalized Texas June 2011) Basically as said incandescent replacements can indeed be bought, but they will be banned too in coming years, with some exceptions (For USA, notable exceptions are 3-way types, rough service types, 150W bulbs, as long as sales don't double...)

Moderator, they are both right! ;-) Yes, replacement incandescent bulbs for ordinary usage can be bought as linked. But they will be banned too in phase 2 of EISA starting 2014 and finishing (at latest) 2020, and the 45 lumen per Watt end-regulation which then applies (EU, Europe, banned by 2016)