Philippines to Ban Incandescent Bulbs

Why do bureaucrats have to force people to save money? Can we not be trusted with our own money? Of course, there are plenty of governments in this world that believe that the government knows best how to spend each citizens' cash. These bans on incandescent bulbs are so noxious. Sure, I use CFL in places in my abode where lighting is powered for hours a day. How about my closet? Why should I install an expensive bulb for something that is illuminated for about 2 minutes a day ?!?!?!?

It just pisses me off that I can't be trusted to use good judgement on the employment of my resources. Educate the people, don't just cram it down their throats. If the govt is worried that poor people won't lay out the cash for CFL's in return for the longer term savings (again an education issue), then let the bleeding hearts provide rebates or grants for low income folks.

Okay, rant against intrusive government complete. But seriously, why do countries feel they have to legislate good sense?

Hear, Hear, B.S. Robin - agree completely. I've always thought that if the Gov't was serious about lowering the cost of electric lighting, they'd should just ban darkness...would have about the same effect. This ban will probably only last about as long as it takes for a Philipino bureaucrat to shatter a 48" bulb while changing it in his bare feet and getting his soles all bloody...

Agreed - some applications just don't lend themselves to CFL's. While they are worlds ahead of 20 years ago, they still are not "instant on"; It's pretty annoying to walk into the bathroom and have to wait 5 min. before you can see yourself in the mirror. Also, they really don't like dimming applications.

...and, they: (A) shouldn't be used in an "enclosure", (B) shouldn't be used upside-down, (C) shouldn't be discarded (Mercury inside), (D) shouldn't expect "off" immediate (complement of their slow "on") cycle, among many other "gotcha's"

All very true, although I must admit I am guilty of violating all of these. Oops, now I'm probably on some Greenie hit list. (Probably was before...)

the point is that the government is responsible for providing electricity to the people

(ok, one could argue that the electric providers do that, but if we ever had a real energy crunch, the govennment would take over those facilities in a heartbeat)

so, it is of national interest that the amount of energy being consumed by something that there are billions of, like a light bulb, be as small as possible.

the less energy required, the less a power plant has to produce, the less new facilities have to be built, the less resources they require, etc, etc

All true, but the supply, and hence the price of electricity will encourage conservation without resorting to legislation. If people are using "too much" power, then raise the price. They will conserve. If I have a bulb in a rarely used space such as an attic or basement, should I be forced to buy an expensive bulb when a simple, reliable incandescent will do the job with far less total energy expenditure? Remember, it requires more energy and resources to produce a CFL than the equivalent incandescent. Never mind the mercury disposal issue etc.

Exactly, hence my sarcastic off-topic jab toward our ignorant world leaders in post #9. How does someone with this type of reasoning able to become a leader in the first place? I noticed the article mentioned similar proposals being made in Canada and Australia. Weird.

The solution if throttling demand using price is not preferred would be to develop a light technology that the "people" want and will choose over incandescent. Forcing them should not be an option.

This is not Vietnam, there are rules!

For just the problems you mentioned, some years ago I put an array of lamps on a long fitting in the bathroom (6 x GU10 mains fittings fittings). 4 sockets are fitted with CFLs with 11 watt (equivalent to a 75 watt incandescent Bulb) and the other two are 1.3 watt LED bulbs.

The LEDs switch on instantly so you can see where you are going quite easily and the 4 CFLs which take time to come on an warm up fully, come on a tiny bit later and flood the bathroom in each corner with really good light.....

LEDs have become cheaper and slightly older designs with less light can be bought for as little as €2-€3.00 nowadays.

The more expensive high power modern LEDs are now available in warm white which appears to be a better color for home use rather than the cold white if CFLs are not combined together with LEDs.......CFLs of course are also available in warm white too....

I hope this helps.....

Oh dear. Hasn't this become a political football!

With 'juice' currently (sorry!) at £0.10GBP per kWh, a bit of simple arithmetic can show that a 40W incandescent lamp being on for only 12 minutes per day can show an attractive saving if replaced with a CFL, at current interest rates.

So, aren't the real issues to be dealt with here communication, and education?

Those curly fluorescent bulbs are just evil! They cause migraines. They spew mercury. I predict a vigorous black market in incandescent bulbs. Stockpile today!

(Which is more energy efficient, a CFL bulb or a kerosene lamp?)

Here in France about 85% of electricity comes from Nuclear power plants.

Many many people are heating electrically, because electricity is quite cheap here.

When you usually put on lamps when it is dark, it is usually also a little colder (night).

The waste heat from an incandescant bulb is thus used to heat your home. This is at the same cost and effect as with the electric heater that hangs on the wall of the same room. "Energy saving lamps" are expesive and would thus be a waste of money and energy.

A good friend of mine in Holland heats his home with gaz. He pays the same price per kWh on gaz as on electric. So there is no benefit on his energy bill for interior lighting. However he has installed energy efficient lamps for exterior lighting because there the waste heat of a lamp is really wasted. Then it makes sense.

Energy efficient lighting also makes big sense in rooms where air conditioning is on. Less waste heat from the lamp is not only less cost for lighting but also less cost for keeping the right temperature because the AC needs less power. Thermal insulation of homes is a major tool for reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions.

Studies have shown that the reduction of one tonne of CO2 emissions costs about 20 Euro on housing and about 400 Euro on a passenger vehicle.

Extreme energy efficiency would make you put on extra clothing when it is cold. Even at home it can be comfortable at 15°C when well clothed.

I guess that in the Philipines it is always quite hot. Then energy efficient lighting makes sense.

Most people are some sensitive to messages in the media and pushed to buying hybrid cars for the environment. Buying a hybrid for the environment and not insulating your home is idiocy and waste of money. But again the media are trying to format all of us and keep us from using common sense. Even supposedly well educated engineers often fall in that trap. Sadly enough.

PLEASE, USE YOUR COMMON SENSE, especially when you read magazines, watch TV, listen to journalists and see advertisements.

EDUCATE YOURSELF & USE COMMON SENSE

I have rated you as a "Good answer" here.

All you said was correct, but the problems are for the most of us if we follow your post fully, that we need incandescent for the winter and energy saving for the summer and who will do this????

Electricity is an expensive form of energy in most countries, so reducing your electrical usage is usually a good idea anyway, winter or summer, unless you live in France maybe!!

Gas, oil, wood or pellets or corn (here in Germany at least), produce heat far far cheaper per BTU than electricity does, so it make sense to have energy saving bulbs installed all the year round, no matter where you live (other than France maybe!).

You have to know the cost per BTU or similar for each energy form before deciding if energy saving bulbs are for you or not!!!

I have a feeling that no matter what energy source is used, some interest group is going to b***ch about it being the Death Of Modern Civilization As We Know It, become temporary media darlings until Britney Spears stumbles out of her house again, and be the focus of somewhat meaningless online discussion groups

I would think that even a partial conversion to wood burning heat sources would cause the anti-logging crowd to have an absolute fit - it's one thing to toss a 1/2 cord in your wood burning stove over the winter, it's probably quite another to run a 50 mw steam turbine off giant redwoods...

I've seen very little reasoned examination of the situation - no one has really, to me anyway, presented the whole picture. I think you have to look the whole picture. For example, hybrid cars are all the rage at the moment, because somehow a few people got the ludicrous idea that it was 'greener' to power yourself down the freeway on battery power than was to do the same on petroleum. But no one has ever shown me how the overall energy use needed to charge those batteries, from a wall outlet powered by a coal-fired utility plant, is more or less 'green' than plain old fossil fuel.

The side effects of the lead and other chemicals in most of those batteries has also not been addressed in the mainstream media, that I've ever seen. No one's ever talked about the potential disposal problem when hundreds of thousands of those big Prius batteries reach the end of their useful lives..

Has anyone ever studied the TOTAL energy cost of CFL vs Incan? Are fluorescents more expensive to produce? What effect does the gas in them have? Has anyone studied the long-term health effects of exposure to CFLs or tube fluorescents? Does everyone who has to work in a cubical farm lit by 48" tubes love that pasty flicker they give everything?

You seem to be missing the point on Hybrid cars at least.

A hybrid car has an electric motor and an IC engine plus batteries. When moving around town for example, only the electric motor will get used, powered from the batteries. Going downhill or braking will cause energy to be replaced in the batteries. Once the batteries are mostly discharged, the IC engine switches itself on and charges the batteries back up.

Out on the open road, using a heavy foot, both motors will drive the cars wheels for a time, until such time as the car is cruising, then either the electric motor will be used alone, or the IC motor depending upon speed/load etc....

That is a relatively quick and cheap way of explaining its operation (badly!!). The best part being that the IC motor is only used when needed and often just to recharge the batteries at its optimum working speed etc.. and this gives large savings of fuel use over the same engine in the same car without batteries and Generator.....often 50% less!!

It does not need to plug into a wall socket ever......though I see personally no reason not to be able to do that if you only make short runs in town......!!

However, the point remains - according to an article published in Machine Design a few months back (I don't have the specific issue in front of me, if there is interest, I will track it down) the total life-cycle costs (manufacture, operation and maintenance, disposal) of a Hummer H₃ (evil SUV behemoth) is less than a Toyota Prius Hybrid. But you'll never hear a Greenie admit it.

I believe that could be true as the batteries are a real problem, lifespan, replacement cost and in getting rid of them in an environmentally safe manner.

I hope that we get a breakthrough in the battery area. The technology has of course been proved otherwise, so the time has not been wasted in any way shape or form.....

I am not of the opinion that a Hybrid is a good purchase at this time because of the battery problems.....

Well see that - I was not aware of that - I, in my professed ignorance, thought Hybrids still had to be plugged in to recharge. I stand corrected. :)